When I reported progress on this Estimate last night I had concluded to all intents and purposes, but on my return to my hotel I heard the programme "Today in the Dáil" and would like to have a mistake made on that programme rectified before I go any further. The Minister for Lands was mentioned and his remarks on forestry were quoted. The former Minister, Deputy Seán Flanagan, was also quoted and his name given correctly. Deputy Esmonde of Fine Gael was quoted, but to my disgust and horror the next person mentioned was myself, but my name was given incorrectly as Deputy T. Duggan, Fianna Fáil. Whoever made that mistake must be very new to the House. Otherwise he would have known me because I have been here for a very long period and I have not changed my name in that time. I was told that the mistake was made by somebody called Mr. Seamus Brennan. That is the end of it.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 34: Lands (Resumed).
Cavan): It sounds like a storm in an eggcup.
A person should be correctly named when he is being quoted. I had asked the Minister that Deputies should be given a list of forestry works when the Estimate on this Vote is being discussed. Every Deputy, whether from a rural area or from a city, should be given information about forestry plantations so that he can check to see what progress any particular forest is making, and whether it is a failure or not. Information should be compiled and Deputies should have access to it when the Minister is speaking on this Estimate. From the list of forestry plantations I mentioned last night I omitted Maam Valley. This forest is making very good progress.
In regard to the hazard of forest fires, it should be possible to spray a belt of ten yards width around each forest so that if a fire crept in from outside the area, when it came to the belt there would be a 95 per cent chance that it would go no further. Perhaps there are very few people in this House who would be better able to speak about fire on coarse or mountain land than I would. Coming from an area where there is that type of land I have a fairly good knowledge of it. What happens is that the previous year's growth dies away and it is just like paper when it catches fire in the following spring.
What happens is that if there is a breeze it curls up in a ball and rolls along with the wind. It has been known to cross over streams, rivers and other places that would be five or six yards in width. If the Forestry Division did not plant within ten yards of the fence and sprayed that area with some kind of grass or weed killer so that it would be completely barren, there is no danger that the fire would cross it. Our plantations in mountain areas are always in danger of fire started by somebody who may light a fire to make tea and so on and does not go to the trouble of putting it out afterwards; or maybe somebody going along in a car throws out the end of a cigarette and starts a fire which may travel for miles over that sort of land where it is very dry.
In regard to the letting of land by the Land Commission on the 12-months system, the Land Commission have made a great mistake over the last few years. Heretofore the Land Commission adopted a very good policy of letting land that was on their hands waiting to be sub-divided; it was generally let to the local congests, but for some reason or other the Land Commission have stepped outside this lately and auctioned it. It is only natural to expect that the man with money can outbid the local congest and take what he wants. I know cases in which people have come distances of up to 30 miles to bid for these lands and got them.
The Minister may say the Land Commission must take whatever money they can get while land is on their hands. Looked at from that point of view it is all right, but from the point of view of peace and quiet and getting co-operation from the local congests, the land should be given to the local congests. It is only natural that congests would be annoyed when land which is adjacent to them is sold to somebody who has plenty of money and comes from about 20 miles distance and, having exploited the land to the full then leaves it. Any sensible person would have to agree that is wrong.
I heard Deputy Seán Flanagan, from my own party, talking yesterday about wild life. We all welcome wild life, but there is one aspect of it about which I would worry very much. If the existence of wild life prevents drainage of fertile land, then it is a very serious situation that the Land Commission must examine. The ideal place for wild life is marshy land that nothing can be done with, but if you have land that is flooding and a bit marshy but which in summer time dries, it is valuable land, With the grants available today, with our entering into the EEC and the consequent importance of agricultural land to the smallholders of the west, if land can be drained it should be drained. Somebody may say: "We want to preserve this for wild life, for a bird sanctuary", but if a poor farmer adjoining it needs to have his land drained, I do not think it is right to interfere with drainage in such a situation.
I would like to thank the officers of the Land Commission and, indeed the Forestry Division in my constituency of Galway city for their co-operation down through the years. Their co-operation could not be exceeded anywhere. I thank them sincerely for their kindness to me in dealing with the requests I make and their prompt and courteous replies at all times to my letters. I wish those who have retired there over the past number of years happiness and long life. I wish the Minister and his Department every success in their activities this year.
First, I should like to take the opportunity in speaking on this Estimate for the Department of Lands of wishing the new Minister, Deputy Fitzpatrick, well during his term of office. Having known him for a considerable period of time I know he will be a credit to this Department as many of his predecessors were.
The Minister referred to the fact that about 2,600 holdings of tenanted land were outstanding for vesting purposes in March of this year, and said that most of these holdings were in the western congested counties and that the question of release for vesting would be getting special attention. I would urge him to deal with this matter, because it has caused a certain amount of dissatisfaction. If this matter could be expedited it would be in the interests of the landowners and of the Department.
There is one aspect of agricultural development and land resource development in my part of the country to which I should like to refer. I should like to state, speaking as a new Deputy in this House, that so far as West Mayo is concerned, I have had the largest number of requests to make representations to the Minister for Lands in relation to the problem of commonage and the division of commonage. The situation has changed rapidly over the past two or three years because of changing economic circumstances through membership of the EEC, increased land prices, increased stock prices and increased prices for other farm produce. The position has now been reached where commonage and much marginal land can be developed very much in the interests of the tenants or owners of such commonage. A few years ago it was not worth bothering about but there is now great interest in this problem.
In the North Mayo area, in Erris, Achill and Ballycroy, there are vast tracts of land which are in commonage and quite a small proportion of the land in that area is held by farmers. I have been requested to make representations in regard to at least 16 different commonages in that area. It is worth bearing in mind that, with the development of agricultural machinery, there is available for the reclamation of such land where necessary a wide range of mechanical aids which makes reclamation a very economic proposition. Obviously, if such land is left in commonage—particularly in an area where you have a number of old people who are not terribly interested in looking after their land, fertilising it and putting high quality stock on it—human nature being what it is, there is not much incentive for one tenant among 30 in one commonage to see to it that this land is well catered for.
We know there is a scheme available under which, in theory at least, the Land Commission can process inquiries and can arrange subdivision of such commonage. I know that a number of application forms have been sent to the Department in relation to such commonage. However, there appear to be problems in regard to the matter. I feel that the Land Commission have been slow in many circumstances in processing such inquiries. Possibly they have not had sufficient resources or personnel to get on with the job. In other circumstances we were told that one or two areas were being developed as test cases rather than as part of a major scheme and they wished to wait to see the effect of such division.
Apart from these considerations, which concern policy, there is another major factor which should be given consideration by the Minister and his Department. In regard to the question of a minority of farmers involved in a particular commonage who do not want to agree to subdivision, something should be done to speed matters up. I know of a case at Drumm, outside Belmullet, where there are 32 tenants and 30 of them are agreeable to subdivision taking place. The land involved is reasonably good agricultural land which, if subdivided, would be a substantial additional resource to each of these farmers in a congested area where land is very valuable. In this case it would add nearly 20 acres to each holding but because two people have decided they will not agree to subdivision the scheme is held up.
There are very many other cases where a small minority hold up the schemes. The Minister answered a question in relation to this point about two weeks ago and said that he and the Land Commission have power in this matter if they decide to use it. There is no necessity for new legislation in regard to this problem. The Minister and his advisers should act where these issues arise, although obviously discretion will be necessary when one considers the proportion of people who object to subdivision is very small. If you have circumstances where the area of disagreement is under 10 per cent it seems to me that the Land Commission are not as effective here as in other areas of national activity where compulsory acquisition of land is necessary in the national interest.
We know from the experimental work carried out by the Agricultural Institute in Glenamoy and from research done on the Continent that the means are there to develop this resource. The most underdeveloped resource in the country is land and particularly marginal land, a good deal of which is the responsibility of the Department of Lands, because of the complications in regard to commonage. This should be developed for the wellbeing of the individual farmers, for the increase in the value of the land which would be reclaimed, for the increase in the level of incomes of individual farmers, and increased exports. The Minister and his advisers should tackle this problem rather than merely act on the applications which are submerged in the Department. From my knowledge of many western areas the work of the Department could play a substantial role in the better use of such land. This is particularly important at the present time because through our membership of the EEC we have an increase in the value of land, we have directives on farm modernisation from the EEC, we have the encouragement to older farmers to retire and the commitment to give whatever land is available to active and committed working farmers. Something should be done about the matter in the interests of the people in regions where there is a high level of unemployment and very little nonfarming employment.
There are a few other points I should like to mention on the Forestry Estimate. Reading the details of forestry expenditure and the level of development there is one striking aspect. Our policy and our attitude towards forestry is somewhat different from that of other countries. In many countries, notably in Norway, forestry is an important arm of the economy and one generally finds a very high proportion of forestry development in private hands on privately owned farms.
Now the Government have many options open to them. It is one thing to decide to use public funds for the purpose of developing forests. It is another thing to encourage such development through private initiative. That is the policy in agriculture and industry. On the other hand, forestry development has been mainly undertaken by the State. Over the years we should have paid more attention to the development of forestry through private initiative. I am not suggesting public expenditure should not be incurred, but the approach should be two-pronged.
State enterprise is essential from the point of view of research and specialised knowledge to ensure a certain level of development. Very much more could have been done in forestry development by our farmers and entrepreneurs had they been encouragaged to engage in this activity and the level of development might have been more substantial had this been the policy of the State. Grants are an essential concomitant of such a policy. Grants were offered over the years but, judging by the level of expenditure on private enterprise, this policy was largely unsuccessful. It is not the fact that a grant is offered that ultimately determines whether or not a policy will be successful. Despite the grants offered private enterprise development in this sphere has been minimal. In the year under review, despite a marginal increase in grants, amounting to £35,000 out of a budget of nearly £8 million for the Forestry Division, expenditure on private afforestation represents under half of 1 per cent of the entire budget. That puts the matter in perspective.
There are some basic questions the Minister could pose in this matter. Are we content with the present preponderance of State investment? Are we satisfied with the private enterprise element? Should the level of private development be proportionately increased? Are we educating our farmers properly as to what should be done to increase the number of trees in private hands? What policy should we implement to achieve the target set? There was considerable criticism of the level of grants up to recently and, despite the increase a few months ago, there is still a good deal of criticism. Experience has shown that giving grants to private enterprise to do something is in the long run a cheaper method generally of getting things done as compared with direct State investment and State management. An increase in the level of grants plus a proportionate increase in development would mean that the gain would be very substantial.
The Forestry Division is finding it increasingly difficult to acquire more land for forestry purposes. This is due to the factors I mentioned earlier. Land can now be developed for agricultural purposes with the help of modern technology which heretofore was incapable of such development. When land is divided there are always parts of that land which are not suitable for agricultural purposes but would be quite suitable for the growing of trees. Our trees as compared with other countries are rather thin on the ground and using pockets of land for afforestation would enhance the beauty of the countryside and the beauty of our farms as well as helping the economy generally.
I wish the Minister a successful tenure of office. With his soundness of judgment and his commonsense, I know the interests of the country will be well served.
I wish the Minister well. I hope he will do a good job. I thoroughly approve of his taking the three counties he mentioned into the areas for special consideration. All my life I have been interested in land tenure. One has to go back to the foundation of the Land Commission to understand it properly. Many people now seem to think there is no future in land unless one has a very big farm. The Minister cannot do the job properly unless he has the money and that is why an injection of capital from the EEC is very important. Because of our resources the Land Commission have not got the money or the staff to do quickly the job we are asking them to do, that is, to divide the land they have. The Land Commission officials in Galway and Athlone are excellent people. There is pressure on them to acquire more land every day, but they have to operate within a certain budget. A certain amount must be paid for in cash and that leaves the "kitty" smaller.
If we are to save the West we must have regional development and land drainage. The Land Commission were a rent fixing body at one time and a purchaser for tenants to eliminate landlordism. Then they became a purchaser and distributor of land in the congested areas. The first two jobs were done fairly well. The Department of Lands and the Department of Agriculture should have been amalgamated because in the early days there was no follow up of instruction on how to work the land. A small farmer was given 20 or 25 acres. He has spent his life watching the rancher driving three year old bullocks out of that land and he tried to do the same type of farming. He did not go into intensive farming or the type of farming which would make a small farm viable. The number of agricultural advisers was limited at that time. I remember when there were two in my own county and there are now 26.
Many of them did very well, but then we had a world war and the problem of foreigners coming in to buy land. I remember presiding at a meeting in Castlebar on 16th July, 1961. Everybody was worried about the number of Germans and other foreigners buying land. We approached the then Minister for Lands, a Mayoman, and said something must be done about it. The 1965 Land Act was introduced as a result. I am ashamed to say that section 40 met with terrible opposition in this House and Michael Davitt was quoted by the Opposition, the founder of the Land League who spoke about the three famous F's: free sale, fixity of tenure and fair rent. Free sale was used in opposition to section 40 but it was not relevant because when Michael Davitt was looking for free sale the landlords owned the land of Ireland. He established the right of the tenant to sell his land to whomever he liked. He took the right from the owner.
According to the arguments in this House the Land Commission were placed in the same position as the landlord. That was entirely wrong. The Land Commission bought the land of Ireland from the landlord in trust for the tenant and he would be the owner in 65 years, I think it was. All we were doing in the 1965 Act was taking a little bit of power from the owner again. That was not spelled out here at that time. That Act was passed but section 40 was modified and, in my view, it is not sufficient at the moment. We had the foreigner at that time, and now we have the speculator, who is probably a landless man. He sells a small piece of land in the city and gets £X,000 per acre for it. He wants to avoid income tax and he buys land in competition with the Land Commission and takes Land Commission land in competition with the small farmer. The Minister must bring in new legislation to strengthen the hand of the Land Commission. I wrote an article in the sixties on this in which I quoted Goldsmith, who wrote:
But a bold peasantry, their country's pride,
When once destroy'd, can never be supplied.
The small farmer is the bold peasant, but he is lost to the country. Everybody said he would be all right because industries would be established. I still believe any farmer who has between 45 and 50 acres of good land and has a farmyard enterprise can make a living. The Land Commission have done away with fragmentation which was the curse of the West. As I said, legislation will be needed because private deals are being made despite vigilance committees. In my area we have 700 acres of land ready to be divided in two parishes. We were vigilant and we watched it. It was very hard to watch it because private deals are made by the man with the cheque book and the proprietor and then there is a lot of trouble.
There is also the problem of land bonds. In fairness to the man who sells land, the land bonds situation is ridiculous. As far as I know, land bonds are the only bonds which have no redemption date on them. If a redemption date were set—say, that they would be redeemable at par three years from the date of issue—we would not have the problem of the bonds coming on the market when they are near par. When a new loan is issued with a higher rate of interest, it immediately becomes the best seller on the stock exchange, and a person who has land bonds with a lower rate of interest cannot sell them. Therefore, people do not like selling to the Land Commission and they do not like land bonds. Of course, we cannot say that the Land Commission should pay for everything in cash because of the present price of land. No matter what money the Minister gets from the EEC he will not be able to pay in cash for all the land he will be expected to buy. If it were stated when the bonds were being issued that they could be redeemed in three years at par, or that when a new State loan was issued the interest on all State loans would rise automatically, people would not detest land bonds. When I ask them to sell land to the Land Commission they say: "Oh those cursed bonds."
The Land Commission get a lot of abuse. I was inclined to abuse them myself until I became a public representative and had dealings with them. They have a very difficult job. If they have a small amount of land and if there are many people who qualify, it is very difficult for them to divide it. I asked them to divide a farm one time and they told me to go home and to do it myself. It would have been a difficult job. They watch for different pieces of land to come on the market.
The Department of Finance should realise that there is a social side to the operations of the Land Commission. Somebody said to me that we would have to be brought before the Committee of Public Accounts if we did not put up the land for sale by public auction. I have the co-operation of the Land Commission. All the big farms in my area have been given to the small farmer at a reasonable rent. I also believe that when meadow land is available those who qualify should get it at a reasonable price. There should be no question of giving it to them for half nothing. If the land is put up for sale by public auction quite naturally the man with the cheque book will be interested and will out-bid all comers. If in every area land were given to people who were entitled to get it there would not have been any agitation against the Land Commission. Unfortunately it is the cheque book people who are able to get a lot of the land that the Land Commission should be giving to people who merit it.
The question was raised about what a viable holding of land is. First of all there is the matter of the type of land; secondly there is the question of where the land is situated; and thirdly there is the question of the type of farming practised in the vicinity. If one were practising market gardening, for instance, one could have a viable holding on a small acreage. On the other hand, one might have 200 acres of land and the holding could not be regarded as viable. As I have intimated, the considerations are the type of farming, the nearest markets and the size of the farm. Therefore, it is difficult to decide what is a viable holding of land.
I suggest to the Minister that a system should be adopted to stop the abuses in land allocation which I have been speaking about. In 1960 I wrote some articles about the Danish system which puts a ceiling on the acreage of land that any man can possess. Certain qualifications are laid down before a man can acquire land under the Danish system. At this point I should emphasise that the number of people who want to get into land at the moment is increasing. Of course I will not argue about my suggestion of 200 acres of good land as being the ceiling.
I say, however, that more efforts should be made to control land speculators. In the 1960s land was given to men who merited it. Now it is the man who has the money who gets the land. At this point I should like to emphasise the need for the Minister and the Government to get and make available to the Land Commission moneys from the EEC Regional Development Fund. I know that the Minister has a special interest in small farmers and in small holdings and I appeal to him to introduce legislation on the basis of the Danish system which I mentioned earlier. The Land Commission at the moment are unable to compete against the people with the money who are buying land.
There is another point I should like to emphasise before concluding on this aspect of the work of the Department of Lands. There was the case of a farm—I shall not mention its location because I might identify it. The case went to court and the land realised more than double what the Land Commission could pay for it. Possession of that land has not yet been obtained. Delays in giving possession of land are holding up division in a number of areas.
The question of forestry was covered very well by the previous two speakers. I can understand the difficulty in getting land for forestry because any land of any use nowadays is used for agricultural purposes.
I wish the Minister well in his appointment. I should like to put to him particularly my worry about the continued flight from the land. Therefore there is a lot to be said for trying to get viable holdings. There is a lot of land to be got if the ceiling on the basis of the Danish system were imposed. If the Minister brings in legislation to introduce a similar system he will get all the support he needs from this side of the House.
I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. Coming from an area with so many small holdings, I anticipate that he will look to the small farmers in the west of Ireland from the point of view of land division. Most of the correspondence I get is critical and sometimes abusive on the matter of land division. It is up to the Land Commission inspectors, locally and in Dublin, to see that lands are divided so that people most entitled to them will get them. In land offices here in Dublin and in Castlebar and Ballina I have always advocated the allocation of land regardless of the political views held by applicants. If a man is entitled to land and if potentially he will work that land he should get it whether he is a Fianna Fáil supporter or a Fine Gael supporter.
Hear, hear.
In my constituency representations are made to the Land Commission in regard to the acquisition of every acre of land that is offered for sale. Because of the many old people in Mayo, a greater number of holdings in that county come up for sale than in any other county. These holdings should be acquired by the Land Commission with the least possible delay. Having been acquired, land often remains in the hands of the Land Commissioners for as long as ten years and the result of this is that at the end of that time the land cannot be productive because whoever would have had the grazing on it would not have been in a position to have had it fertilised and treated as it should be treated. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to ensure that in any case where title is nearly right —I know in some cases there are difficulties in this regard—the maximum time for the land to be held by the commissioners should be not more than two years. Land that is productive is of great benefit to the economy. For this reason and because of the many people who are in need of extra land, I trust the Minister will take some action on the question of the length of time that a holding can be held by the commissioners.
The last speaker referred to speculators. It is time that speculation was brought to an end. It is evident in the city of Dublin where, perhaps, a man who had inherited from three to five acres, might find that it was worth a few hundred thousand pounds and so, he might go to the midlands and invest half of that money in land there. That would be good investment so far as he was concerned but it would result in depriving congests from the west of Ireland of economic holdings. This should not be allowed happen. We have the situation whereby a person who has 400 acres may, if he wishes, buy a further 100 acres. I do not know what the policy of the Land Commission is in this regard but, for some reason or other, they do not seem to interfere although local people are crying out for land. I can assure the Minister that if, in future, a sale of this nature should take place in my constituency, the local people intend making their protests known. I could only give them my sympathy and support because speculators should not be allowed to deprive them of the land they need so much.
It is not difficult to understand how much it would upset a young married man who might be trying to exist on about 20 acres of land to find that a sale of the type I have mentioned took place in respect of land adjacent to his holding. Can any honest man say that the Land Commission are doing their duty in allowing such sales to take place? I shall table question after question in this House if any further sales of land to speculators are allowed in my constituency. Much land was divided recently in my area. In this regard there was the case of a young man who had been renting ten acres from the Land Commission for ten years. He had been hoping to be given that bit of land which he depended on entirely for tillage but he was offered a portion of land that nobody would be likely to take, not one acre of which could be tilled because it was all swamp and was suitable only for afforestation. That young man had six children. According to the regulation there is a mile limit in operation in respect of land division. I know this place very well and I know that a man who could not have complied with the mile limit was given land. Surely one would have thought that the person who had been renting the land for ten years and which land was beside him would have been given it.
The Deputy seems to be making a charge against someone who is identifiable. In that case, it would be much better if the Deputy would give this information confidentially to the Minister.
Am I not allowed to refer to what happens in my constituency in so far as the Department of Lands are concerned? Is the Chair silencing me in this respect? If so, I am prepared to withdraw what I have said.
The Chair is not doing that but what the Chair is saying to the Deputy is that if he is making charges against someone who is identifiable it would be better if he give the information confidentially to the Minister.
I have written letters to the Minister in this regard and I am waiting to see what will happen. I am prepared to abide by the Chair's ruling but if the Chair considers that I am not entitled to speak on these matters, I shall sit down.
I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that in the case of people who have not the privilege of the House it would be better that charges should not be laid against them.
I am prepared at any time to take the Minister for Lands on a tour of my constituency but I know he would not have time to do that. I can stand over any statement I make. The type of things I have described are taking place in my constituency but I want to see those people who are entitled to land being given it but this is not the case in many respects. I am sorry that the Chair considered it necessary to pull me up.
The Chair must enforce the rules of order and protect individuals who have not the privilege of the House.
In my county the Land Commission acquire smallholdings on which very often there are vacant cottages but there are hundreds of young people in need of housing. I know it is neither the policy nor the duty of the Land Commission to provide houses but the point I wish to make is that these cottages fall into such a state of disrepair that after some time they are not fit for habitation. Therefore any such houses should be let to young people within, say, six months of the acquisition of the holdings. There is the point, too, that many of these houses were built with the help of State grants. Sometimes houses are vacant for five or six years. A vacant house should be allocated to somebody. It would be a great help to a young man getting married and trying to get a house.
I shall not detain the House any longer. I should like the Minister to bear in mind the few points I have made. I can stand over everything I have said.
I should like to congratulate the Minister on his new Ministry and wish him well. His opening speech is an indication that he is prepared to give all aspects of his portfolio very minute treatment. That is to be expected, coming from a constituency in which he has to deal with this problem. My experience of his constituency is limited to books like Tarry Flynn but perhaps in the next few months we will make his acquaintance in the neighbouring constituency and see conditions there for ourselves.
The previous Estimate was presented to us only six or seven months ago. I spoke on that occasion and I do not think anything has changed very much since then. I said then that if there is one Department more than any other that causes me headaches it is the Department of Lands and particularly the Land Commission. The time has come, and perhaps is long past, when we should ask ourselves whether the Land Commission, as constituted today, is the proper vehicle for the restructuring of holdings; whether it is suitable for bringing our farms, and particularly our small holdings, up to the standard we require for the eighties and the nineties. I am convinced it is not. Through no fault of its own the Land Commission, as at present constituted, is far too cumbersome. It has become outmoded. The conditions of today are such that the Land Commission is not in a position to fulfil its primary function. It cannot buy the necessary land to make small holdings viable. In my constituency land would now be considered cheap at £500 and £600 an acre. We must ask ourselves whether it is proper that we should acquire this land and give it to smallholders and expect them to pay an annual rent of £50 and £60 per statute acre and make a living and make a success of farming on that. The price of land has soared to such an extent that the normal purchase and division of land in the midlands, particularly in my county, is no longer satisfactory.
I only intend to speak in connection with Kildare, where I know the workings of the Land Commission. Perhaps I will sound a bit parochial but as a result of what I have to say the Minister will get an idea of the feelings in the constituency. To some people Kildare may appear to be a rich county but we have within our county many small farmers trying to earn a living on 30 and even 22 acres. Some of them have been put there by the Land Commission on holdings which were considered adequate some years ago but which are no longer adequate. The Land Commission have a big responsibility to those people to ensure that they get a chance to make a success of farming.
I would agree with Deputy Callanan who said that the whole secret of the future of the Land Commission and the Department of Lands is availability of money and availability of credit to people. This should be the principal function of the Department as far as Land Commission activities are concerned. It is no longer realistic to expect farmers to avail of credit to buy land which must be paid back at a 10 per cent interest rate. Something in the region of 5 per cent would be more realistic. If there are—and we are told there are—EEC funds available from the regionalisation and other policies they should be channelled in this direction. This should be one of the planks of our regionalisation policy. In the future the Land Commission or some such body should screen applicants for land to assess their suitability and ensure that they are suitable. I think too, there should be much more liaison with other bodies such as the Agricultural Credit Corporation and particularly with the agricultural instructors, men who know the farmers, know those who have availed of small farm incentive schemes, and so on. There should be a close tie-up between the Departments of Lands and Forestry and Agriculture and Fisheries.
The Minister mentioned that £1 million has been set aside for cash purchases this year. While this is an improvement and it is welcome—we do not wish to make little of it—I do not think it is enough. At present prices it will not go here nor there in solving the problem before us. If the Land Commission are to function properly they will need much more money. We must realise that investment in the land of Ireland is investment in our real wealth. The easiest cases that were presented to the Land Commission were cured from time to time but, as each year goes by, more chronic cases will appear and they will need dearer and more intensive treatment and we will have to pay for this type of treatment.
Deputy Finn was critical of the allocation of land. I, too, have written many letters in a critical vein to the Land Commission in regard to the allocation of land but I do not agree with Deputy Finn that political ininfluence has any bearing on this. I cannot see party politics playing any part whatever in the allocation of land and I should like to place that on record. Deputy Finn, of course, did indicate that he, thank God, was not like the rest of men; but he had high hopes that if this happened now he would get the new Minister to intervene. I have no evidence of this at all. I am often at variance with decisions of the Land Commission and to my mind the right people do not get the land, but any decision involving two, three, four or more people must be debatable and I do not envy the Land Commission their task. Recently a person whom I hoped would get land got it in my constituency and I got more criticism in this regard than in the case of any other person who was allocated land there recently.
I agree with Deputy Finn regarding the sale of houses. In some cases the Land Commission acquire properties with houses and allow the houses to deteriorate before the land is allocated. In cases like this an early decision should be made and the Land Commission should be in a position to know within some months whether the house will be required for somebody who is to be allotted land and, if it is not, that house should be sold quickly.
I should like to compliment the Land Commission on their helpful approach to Kildare County Council regarding sites for houses. While the offer has been made and a site will be available in one case that I know of, it is very difficult indeed to get final maps and all the legal data and red tape sorted out. I hope the Minister will be able to expedite matters like that which are holding up the building of houses for people. I am aware that it is not the function of the Land Commission to provide houses but where there is a will there is a way. I hope that the Minister will be in a position to make things run a little more smoothly in this regard.
I should like to ask the Minister to ascertain, for his own information, how many full-time farmers in Kildare are not living on viable holdings? From my information we have many such farmers. Many farmers in Kildare require more land and the Minister should make himself aware of this problem. Once he has become aware of it I suggest that he should allow no more migration into Kildare until the problem has been solved. I am conscious of the fact that many of the people who have settled in Kildare are good farmers, good workers and good neighbours and in many cases good cumann members.
We have reached the stage that if any further migrants are allowed into Kildare it will only aggravate a situation that is already painful enough. Past Ministers, including the Fianna Fáil Ministers, have taken advantage of the fact that the people in Kildare are law-abiding and are likely to put up with treatment like this. While I am not suggesting that we might change our attitude in this respect I suggest that the Minister and the Land Commission, should examine this problem and endeavour to "christen our own child first" in the county.
In Kildare we have problems and it is hard for me, or anybody, to explain them. It is hard for me to explain the fact that the Land Commission, when land has been divided in North Kildare recently and there was the problem of a holding which was placed inside another holding, gained access to it by going through another person's property. This led to trouble and the Land Commission was asked to right the wrong they had done. This difficulty was pointed out to the Land Commission before any plans were made for the division of this particular farm but they continued in their own way.
The Minister, in reply to a question by me recently, stated that the only farm left to be divided in Kildare is a big farm. This will probably be given to somebody from outside the county who will give up a big holding to move into Kildare. I fail to see why the Land Commission do not solve a problem on their doorstep in Kildare by dividing this farm among local farmers. The division of this land among local farmers would help in a big way to solve the problem of congestion. It is hard for me to explain the actions of the Land Commission in this regard when I am asked to make representations on behalf of local farmers. I have found that my representations in regard to the division of this land have had very little effect.
I cannot understand why people are brought in from outside the county to these farms when we have problems of our own in Kildare. These problems have been with us for 20 years and are a festering sore that should have been dealt with long ago. Some of the 35-acre farms of migrant farmers were on the market recently and were purchased by wealthy landowners and, in some cases, people who were not landowners at all. The last farm to come on the market is being sought by a wealthy landowner. The Land Commission is still investigating the case. There are three deserving farmers in that area with 35 acres and the Land Commission should acquire this farm and divide it among these farmers. By doing this the Land Commission would be coming near to the target which they set themselves.
The Land Commission in many counties appears to act in isolation. I am aware that the attitude of the Land Commission when dealing with a migrant from Kerry was that they would fix him up and get him out of the county but whatever happened to him when he reached Kildare was another person's worry. There should have been closer liaison with the agricultural instructors and the land project inspectors regarding the draining of the land given to this migrant farmer. The net result in this case was that the land which had been set for conacre for many years, and laid down eventually through contract by the Land Commission, was unsuitable. It was so uneven that it was impossible to operate a silage-making machine. The land may have passed the Land Commission inspector but the examination made by the inspector must have been a cursory one The Land Commission did meet this farmer to a limited extent. This indicates the importance of liaison between Land Commission officials in the various counties, agricultural instructors and land project officers. Their advice should be sought and acted on.
I welcome the change that makes cash available rather than land bonds. I was interested in the suggestion put forward by Deputy Callanan in this regard. I believe that this suggestion should prove helpful to the Minister. The availability of cash rather than land bonds is a great incentive to people who have land on the market to deal with the Land Commission. It is also an incentive to auctioneers with land on their books to deal with the Land Commission.
Heretofore land in the hands of the Land Commission has been let for far too long. While one cannot apply hard and fast rules to any particular case I feel after land has been in the hands of the Land Commission for five years it should be divided. In many cases where the land is let it is run out before it is divided. I also feel that where land is being let by the Land Commission the lots should be small. Land Commission land should be let in lots that will suit smallholders in the immediate locality rather than the man with the cheque book that Deputy Finn spoke of. I agree that efforts have been made to facilitate farmers recently but in many cases I was told by the Land Commission inspector that the farmers interested should group themselves together and divide the land among themselves. This is not as easy as it sounds. It might prove an enticement to some to join various groups that are not at all helpful regarding the allocation or letting of land in the midlands.
I should like to compliment the Land Commission on the layout of farmyards and houses. Great strides have been taken in recent years with regard to roadways; some years ago roads were in bad condition and they had many dangerous bends. I know from personal experience that if one had the misfortune to mention at county council level a Land Commission pump one got very little hearing. The Land Commission should be complimented on the improvements they have made in all these matters.
I should like to ask a question regarding the inspection and acquisition of farms. The Minister mentioned that 44,000 acres were inspected last year, that 21,000 acres were acquired and that 70,000 acres were being considered for acquisition. I realise one cannot equate the amount inspected in one year with the amount acquired but it should balance out eventually. I find it difficult to believe that we accept one acre out of every two we examine. It may be that there were 21,000 acres in the pipeline and that they were acquired in a particular year. We inspected only 44,000 acres last year and I think this may be an indication that the amount of land we acquire in the future will be small. I hope that is not the position and I should like the Minister to clarify this matter.
With regard to the sale of land to non-nationals, I note that the Minister referred to "white elephant" properties in his speech. I am glad of the Land Commission thinking on this matter but it is not always implemented. I know one farmer who had 70 acres and who needed capital to improve his farm and to buy stock. He had an old disused sand pit and was lucky to find an American who was interested in buying it for a very high price but the Land Commission would not agree to the sale of the pit. I realise this may be only an isolated case and I hope that the Minister's guideline will be followed. I made representations to the Minister on that occasion but without success.
Last night Deputy Esmonde said that the Minister does not seem to stamp his authority on the Land Commission and I agree with this. Perhaps this is something a Minister cannot do; perhaps the Land Commission are a law unto themselves. However, I think the Land Commission will only carry out the policy laid down and enunciated by the Minister; the faceless commissioners whom we criticise so much will carry out that policy.
If the Minister listens to Deputies and if he reflects on his own experience in these matters he will realise a change is needed. The Minister should outline his plans for future policy; he should state if he considers a viable holding to be 50, 60 or 70 acres. Deputy Callanan has pointed out it is not possible to be dogmatic about this matter because an acre in one place is not equivalent to an acre in another area but some guidelines should be laid down.
Greater incentives are necessary in order to encourage people to leave farming. Up to now the present policy has not been successful and it would be helpful if something further could be done. The position appears to have improved somewhat but much greater incentives will have to be given to encourage people to leave farming in order that others may take their place.
Deputy Staunton mentioned the matter of commonage. This is not a burning question in my area but I know of one instance of a small commons at Carna, Suncroft, which I have brought to the notice of the Land Commission. It has been inspected but the cumbersome wheels of the Land Commission grind very slowly. I know that the people concerned about this matter would like to see the commonage taken over and divided. I have been pressing for this for some years. The people who graze it would be happy to get a portion so that they might make the maximum use of the land. The local football and hurling clubs expect to get a pitch on the ground; they use the commonage at the moment but if the pitch were allotted to them they could carry out some improvements. I know there are legal aspects but a sense of urgency should pervade the Land Commission's activities in the acquisition of commonage and its prompt division.
The Minister has dealt at length with EEC conditions regarding land acquisition and the dangers of non-nationals acquiring land. This question was well aired during the debate on our entry into the EEC and the referendum. I am happy that adequate safeguards are provided in this matter and I thank the Minister for outlining them. I should like to assure those people who are worried that the safeguards that exist to ensure that the land of Ireland remains in Irish hands are adequate.
I know little about the afforestation programme. It does not concern me very much because we have only three small woods in Kildare. It is something for which the Department of Lands can claim much credit and is a guarantee of our faith in the future. It is a monument to the foresight of the people concerned and now we have a heritage of mature forests. I have seen some of the forests in Gougane Barra and other areas and I am glad an effort is being made to open small areas near towns and large centres of population. I am sure the people will protect and respect these forest areas. I hope that the policy whereby these amenities are opened to the public will be pursued; I know the civic spirit of the people will ensure that the plantations will not be damaged.
In my county there is a wallboard factory that depends for raw material on the thinnings of State forests and the scraps that are left from sawmills. In the next few years we will have much more mature timber and our own factories can deal with our native timber. Up to now the price being asked by the Department of Lands was very high and the margin of profit was small. The products of this factory in Kildare had to compete with Swedish firms who were in the happy position of having mature forests. They did not have to deal with thinnings and, consequently, were in a favourable position to deal with the European market. Since I last spoke on this matter the position has improved somewhat. However, I would ask the Minister to ensure that a short-term policy will not be pursued and that help will be given to these factories, which will be a distinct benefit to the country at a later date.
I should like to compliment the Minister on his statement regarding wild life conservation and I trust that his regard for this matter will match that of his predecessor. I know that this item is a minor matter as regards finance but it is vital for our tourist industry and our local amenities as we become increasingly conscious of the need to safeguard the environment. Any Minister must be alert to and aware of this. I ask our Minister to be vigilant also in regard to it.
In conclusion I should like again to compliment the Minister. Deputy Staunton wished the Minister a successful tenure of office. For a moment he frightened me: I thought he had said ten years. He might be over optimistic if he said that but, whether the Minister's stay is long or short, I thank him for his statement and his courtesy and I wish him all the best.
I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well. He has not had much time to deal with this Estimate which was probably prepared for the most part before he took office.
I have a few points to make in regard to the Land Commission, some critical and some not so critical. Like many other speakers, I must refer to the length of time during which the Land Commission retain land before dividing it and even before one knows what will be done with it. In many cases I know small farmers living in a state of hardship, struggling in small holdings, in the hope that Land Commission land will be divided within a reasonable time. Over a number of years these people are being driven almost into bankruptcy because they are trying to take conacre at a prohibitive price in the hope of getting an allotment eventually. They stay on because they are farmers at heart and want to remain on the land. They are forced to stay on uneconomic holdings and try to hold out until the Land Commission thinks well of dividing an estate. All during that period they must pay prohibitive prices which can leave them very little profit. Yet people are coming in and taking big tracts of land wherever they can get them and pushing up prices on the unfortunate smallholders.
If you make £1 per acre, I suppose, it is possible if you have 1,000 acres to make £1,000 but if you make £1 an acre on five or six or ten acres it is a very small income. This situation has developed in places I know because the Land Commission are not expediting land division as they should. Like other Deputies, I see no reason for holding on to these estates and letting them and, as has been said, reducing the fertility of the land because people who take conacre do not worry about the kind of husbandry they carry on and naturally the land becomes worse as time goes on. When the smallholders get the land it has deteriorated so much that it takes a long time to restore the fertility it should have if it were distributed more speedily.
There may be considerations, such as pilot farms, operating in the mind of the Land Commission; we do not know, but there are rumours. The Irish people are hopeful and carry on in the expectation of getting land eventually. But they should be told the truth and if there is a plan for a pilot farm in an area or a scheme of some other kind, the local people should know there is no hope of ever getting land from the Land Commission in that area.
As regards confining allocations of land to smallholders within a mile of the estate being divided, I think this one mile limit at the present day is ridiculous. With mechanisation on the land we know people are travelling many miles to take conacre and are doing it successfully. I cannot see why a man living a mile and a quarter away is apparently ruled out from an allocation of land. Whether he is a good farmer or not is far more important. If he is a good farmer and a person who should be allocated land a distance of two, three, four or five miles to me seems unimportant. Very few people are dependent on horses nowadays; they are using mechanical transport of all sorts to get from one place to another and the kind of distance I have mentioned is not prohibitive. That part of Land Commission policy should be revised. The one mile limit is out of date, even though the Land Commission may hold that it is practical and has worked out well. That may be so, but I do not agree, because a man who is one and a quarter miles away from land which is being divided may be an excellent farmer while a man within the limit may not be such a good applicant. In such a case the one mile limit should not apply. Actually it seems to be fairly rigidly applied; there may be rare exceptions but it is a rule that the Land Commission like to observe.
Land Commission policy regarding land acquisition requires examination. We need some general plan in an area. I can give instances of areas in my constituency where large farms within a small radius were allowed to be sold to foreigners, up to 200 or 300 acres, even though people in the area were agitating for this land to be taken over by the Land Commission and even though there was real need for it. Yet this was not done. I know of one case where foreigners were allowed to purchase large tracts of land. Recently a smallholder there sold his 38 acres to an Irishman who was, I agree, adding it to a larger farm. The Land Commission stepped in and said they were interested in this land. There seems to be no overall policy when a 200-acre farm was allowed to be sold and yet a stop was put on the sale of a 38-acre holding and the Land Commission decided to take it over. Why allow a 250 acre farm to be sold to a foreigner in the last five or six years? This is hard to understand. It is impossible to convince people that the Land Commission have a policy on land acquisition.
Some Land Commission decisions regarding the allotment of land are hard to understand. I know it is difficult to get full agreement on who should get land, but I think land should be made available to people who are proven farmers. Land Commission policy seems to be that if you have a small holding under the Land Commission you are entitled to land but if you are a landless person, even though you may be proving yourself by taking conacre and in other ways to be an excellent farmer, you seem not to be entitled to land at all. That is a pity. There are people who have no land themselves but who have been making a good living out of conacre— and with the prices paid for conacre that is a difficult job in this country today—and they have proved that they are excellent farmers who should have land but they do not seem to be properly qualified because they are not smallholders. That position should be examined. There should be a change of policy on the part of the Land Commission.
In one area in my constituency the Land Commission have held large tracts of land for ten years. People have been taking land on a conacre basis in the hope of being able to continue farming, but they will not get any of this land when it is being divided. The Land Commission should intervene. This land should be divided among the small farmers whose farms are uneconomic. According to European standards these men should not be farming at all. They are farming in the hope of getting an allotment of land. They should know where they stand. They should be in a position of being able to make a decision as to whether they will continue farming or not.
In my constituency there are large tracts of land which are not properly used. This matter should be examined. If a man has a large tract of land and is not using it properly—as owner he may feel he is entitled to do that, and I have some sympathy with that view —he should be allowed to keep a certain amount of the land in order to make a living. It would be easy to make a living with 400 or 500 acres if he got a couple of pounds for each acre. Probably this man has no family. There are many such people. If they want to hold on to land they should be made pay for it and funds could be got for the Land Commission in that way. It is ridiculous to have people holding large tracts of land at £1 or £2 per acre, or perhaps freehold. Land is a national asset. People who are not farming large tracts properly should be made to pay a substantial contribution from the acres they have if such land is not to be taken over and given to people who will work it in the proper way.
The Land Commission have been in trouble over the money which they have to pay for land. They have to pay the market value now. That is only reasonable. They pay for land with land bonds, a method of payment which has been much criticised. People found that these bonds could not be converted into ready cash except at a reduced figure. I am glad to hear that there is an improvement in the amount of money available for cash purchases this year.
The attitude of the Land Commission, when they are calling on people whom they think might be suitable applicants for the division of land, is such that they frighten them by telling them that they will have to pay astronomical rents for the land. There should be some arrangement under which part of the money could be paid by the people who get the land, and that money could be made available from the Agricultural Credit Corporation or some other source so that the rents would be reasonable. Most people have to buy farms. Usually they have to borrow money to pay for them. If there were long-term loans so that people had to pay only half the price of the land and could pay the other half over a period of 35 years it would be easier for the small farmers who are in a position to get land from the Land Commission. If a man is asked to pay £50 or £60 per acre a year the rent would amount to several hundred pounds. That frightens small farmers.
I have some other remarks about land division. I will discuss them privately with the Minister. In regard to the Forestry Division, I have a feeling that the State has done a wonderful job in building up our forests. Much employment has been given in this way, but we are not now making the best of our forestry products. If we are to make a success of our forestry efforts now, when many of our forests are reaching maturity and producing mature timber, some consideration should be given to the setting up of a timber industry attached to the forests. It is ridiculous that we should sow the trees and mind them but when they are cut down, give the wood to others to make money out of it. There is money to be made from the timber when it is cut down. The Forestry Division could be wonderful employers. If the proper people were in charge we could make a success of a timber industry. We are letting this timber go to others who can make money out of it. The Minister should examine the possibility of setting up a timber industry. Perhaps a State body should be set up to do this work now when our plantations are reaching maturity. The people who put money into the timber during its growing period should get money from it now. We should finish the job we started. This should be done by State enterprise.
I should like the Minister to advise the Land Commission to expedite the division of land and let people know who are the beneficiaries of this land division. There should be liaison between the Land Commission and the Agricultural Credit Corporation with a view to advancing money to these proven farmers who would be getting the land, who would have stock and would probably have to satisfy the Land Commission that they had stock and so on before they could get any land. Some money should be made available to reduce their rents so that these men even though they might not have ready cash at the time, would be partly buying this land. I realise land has to be paid for at the market value, but if half the borrowing could be on the Land Commission and the other half on the person getting the land, this system could be a great help. If in five or ten years things changed for that man and he had to sell the land, it would not have such a crippling rent that he could not sell it.
Lastly, in regard to forestry, as a great deal has been spent by the Department in finishing the product and using up the raw material, it is they who should get the profit from it.
First of all, I should like to wish the Minister well in his office and compliment him and the officers of the Department of Lands and the Forestry Division on the work they are doing.
In his speech the Minister mentions the carrying forward of the unexpended amounts into the current year for the purpose of land purchase and the payment of life annuities, which I welcome. I am a little surprised to find that the total amount of advances to farmers for reconstruction of houses and new houses is only £24,000-odd to 42 applicants. Mention has been made of the land in the acquisition machine. One hears from time to time about delay in the division of land and the previous speaker has referred to details of which he has knowledge. All of us, going across the country, come across complaints of delay in the division of land. I understand the Minister has not got direct control over this, that it is a matter for the commissioners. If there are 76,000 acres in hand at the moment and if this is land suitable for agricultural purposes, the Minister should try to ensure that all or as much as possible of that land is divided out before the Estimate comes up again.
A great deal has been said about the social problems in regard to land for the section of the farming community who need it. As this is the first year in which we are members of the EEC, I welcome the manner in which the Minister in his speech has spelt out the conditions under which lands may be sold or purchased by nationals of member states. There has been during last year and this year a good deal of misunderstanding and misapprehension about this aspect, although the Department, through the previous Minister and through other agencies, have tried to inform the public. I shall not spell it out other than to mention the directive which refers to land which is left uncultivated and is not even grass land for two years, and which states that members of any other member states who have worked as paid agricultural workers for an unbroken period of two years may acquire farms in this State.
The Minister also stresses that full right of establishment in agricultural land does not yet operate in the EEC. Perhaps it is no harm to mention, in relation to the number of years, that I served in one EEC Committee over the past couple of years in which it was borne out that it would take up to 13 years to get the right to acquire land in France. However, the Minister does not seem to be too worried about this problem. I also welcome what is said in his address, that the policy of the Department is that lands available to us are predominantly allocated to active and committed working farmers pursuing a development plan. Here I must query the Minister on what policy is being adopted in areas where land is badly needed by working families and where land is being sold for purposes other than farming, such as housing and so on. If we are to pursue a proper social policy, the Department of Lands should ensure that if land is coming on the market in any area in which there is a scarcity of agricultural land, the priorities should be in the interest of any working farmers with families in that area.
A number of speakers mentioned the cost of land to the Land Commission. The Minister, in the course of his introductory speech, said:
The end result aimed at is the creation of a vigorous and thriving rural community.
Some Deputies mentioned that those who have a lot of money on their hands and can afford to buy land affect the policy of the Department by raising the price of land. It seems to me if we can, as was announced last week, adopt a policy of subsidising the interest rates for housing loans, that where land is needed to bring small farmers nearer to a viable condition the Minister might consider, in the interests of a better social policy, the subsidisation of the interest rates charged in order to purchase land and compete with those who can afford to buy land, so that land can be provided for the small farmers who need it.
I am sure all Deputies are very concerned about the matters mentioned by Deputies Callanan, Finn and Bermingham. Now that we are in the EEC there is need for a more vigorous examination of the social consequences of permitting the purchase of vast acres of land by people simply because they have the money to do so. One Deputy mentioned the policy being pursued in Denmark. I have not any close knowledge of their policy but I have some knowledge of that followed in Holland. We should examine the policies being followed by member states of the EEC to see if we can follow similar policies in the interest of our rural community.
I have a great interest in forestry particularly in encouraging afforestation by the State and private owners. The Minister stated that the figure of £1,135,000 available for land acquisition is the highest figure ever. He also stated that the acreage of land acquired in 1971 was 37,253 acres and in 1972 36,474 acres. The Forestry Division should be complimented on the transformation which has taken place in relation to afforestation over the past 15 years. Deputy Staunton said that visitors had stated that our forests were thin on the ground, but anybody who examines what has taken place here over the last 20 years, when the acreage of State planted land has more than doubled and is now at approximately 597,000 acres, will realise that something rather historic, in a country of this size, has taken place. Many people who travel extensively through the country have noticed in almost all counties the increase in State forests. I am very glad to note that the target of 25,000 acres was achieved last year.
I urge the Department to continue their efforts to acquire sufficient land in order to maintain this target. It is essential to maintain this over the next ten years for the future development of our economy as far as afforestation is concerned. I can foresee a time by the end of this century when considerable expansion in direct employment in afforestation will have taken place as a result of the very vigorous efforts of the Forestry Division under the present and previous administrations. This is a national policy rather than one relating to any particular administration.
A previous speaker spoke about the increase in private planting grants and the Minister stated that the Department had 1,000 inquiries out of which he has got 150 applications. I believe that inquiries from farmers are very difficult to get. No farmer likes to have to look for a pencil, some paper and an envelope to write to the Department and if he gets an official letter he is very reluctant to go any further. This number increases to such an extent that you are very lucky if one-tenth of those who were originally interested follow through in their application for a private planting grant.
I recommended in the past—possibly the recommendation is now being followed—encouraging a closer relationship between the local forester and the farmer. Most farmers really do not have time to plant but if one manages to bring a farmer to the stage at which he is sufficiently interested to go to the trouble of asking questions, then that is the time to get to work and a closer relationship would encourage that development. The level of private planting is disappointingly low. Many efforts have been made by the Department to increase the level and possibly the recent increase in the grant and the change in the conditions—one can now get a grant for planting 1,000 trees— will help to encourage private planting. The level of private planting here is much lower than it is in other European countries. However, there is no reason why we should underrate ourselves. The Department and the Minister could, with advantage, engage in more publicity about what has been achieved. I do not think many people know that over the past five years the Forestry Division of the Department of Lands have been planting 37,000,000 trees per annum. That is a significant figure.
I welcome the approach of the Department and the Minister to conservation. The Minister said that new proposals are being formulated for the conservation of wild life. On the educational side I might mention here the recent publication of an excellent book on afforestation and wild life, entitled Ireland's Countryside; this is one of the best books of its kind and I recommend it for nature study courses and environmental courses. I would appeal to the Minister to recommend it also because it is necessary to encourage an interest in young people, not alone in rural areas, where they tend to acquire it anyway, but in city schools in urban areas.
I should like to take this opportunity to compliment the many urban authorities who have planted and are engaged in planting trees for decorative or amenity purposes and those industries which are adopting the excellent policy of appointing environmental representatives to their staffs. This is a healthy sign. It shows that the Department are succeeding to some extent in their policy of getting public support and approval for what they are doing in relation to the environment and afforestation.
I should like to join with the others in complimenting the Minister on his appointment. I wish him many happy years in office.
Listening to the debate one gets a good idea of the many problems up and down the country. Reference was made to the delay in the handing over of land and so on. Land acquisition is fraught with difficulty. I would like here to compliment the Land Commission on the delicacy of their approach in acquiring land from old people and from others also. There is a thing about land, a thing one does not find in other countries. I am very glad we are adopting a more realistic approach towards the acquisition of land in that we are now prepared to pay the market value and we are prepared to pay cash. This is very important because those who give up land must provide themselves with alternative homes and must have some modest comfort in their declining years. The least they should have is cash to enable them to provide themselves with these things.
I also welcome the approach to loans for small farmers to enable them to acquire viable holdings. The Minister agreed that £10,000 is not a realistic figure. The ceiling should be nearer £40,000. An Opposition speaker suggested a reduction in interest rates. This would be very helpful. I should like to see this particular scheme extended to all areas because there is some congestion in every area.
With regard to the one mile limit, a person living in a parish should be eligible for land in that parish. This one mile qualification is depriving a great many suitable applicants from acquiring additional land. Another qualification—I am not sure if it is binding—is that a person must own land in order to qualify for additional land. That is not a good idea because second, third, fourth and fifth sons would make excellent farmers if they could get land.
I welcome the idea of tidying up holdings and improving the fertility of the land. A new owner taking over responsibility for a farm, and probably a wife as well, is usually fairly low in finance. It is a great help if the land is well set out, fertilised and limed, so that he can go ahead and make some money.
In conjunction with the Department of Lands, the Land Commission should set up pilot farms in certain areas, run by master farmers and top class young men, and setting an example for the whole area. Perhaps we could think about that. In my own area I have noticed that a number of farms given to certain people found their way onto the market again. Some people have proved very unworthy of being given land. They should never have got it in the first place. In future they should have to rent the land for a while, prove their worth, do cost accounting in conjunction with the agricultural instructor, and show that they can do a good job. In the past, apparently, many of them did not live up to expectations.
I should like to compliment the Land Commission on the much improved design in the general layout of Land Commission holdings. There used be a sort of sameness about their holdings. Very little could be done about this. They were massproduced. Money was spent on buying the land. I am glad to notice that today there is some variation and the design of the out-offices is very much improved. Many other things could be incorporated at very little extra cost such as a cattle race and labour saving devices and, possibly, even a milking parlour could be included in the design in future.
With emphasis on larger holdings in the EEC I am pleased to note that the Land Commission are now considering larger acreages. I should like to join with the Minister in commending Macra na Feirme on their survey. I would welcome further discussions with farming organisations on the whole subject of land acquisition and division. We should go all out to cash in on EEC aids for regional development especially for the poor farming areas. For social as well as economic reasons, it is very important to keep these communities where they are and to do everything we can for them. Bearing that in mind, I would be rather slow at the moment to hand over too much marginal land to the forestry section. With all the new techniques in the European countries, quite good land for grazing can be developed from what was considered land suitable for forestry.
With regard to the financial aid for the three additional counties, I am more in favour of incentive payments to farmers, or to anybody else for that matter, on the basis that if you give a man a fish he can live for a day but if you teach him to fish he will live for a lifetime.
Mention has been made of forestry. Down in my part of the country we have some very beautiful places like Killavullen and Watergrasshill. I would say their beauty is Norwegian. We have something to be really proud of and I should like to see these places being opened to the public. I know there are problems with regard to fires and so on, but it would be very relaxing for people and for Deputies from the "big smoke" to come down, have a picnic and drive around in our very beautiful forests.
They can always come to West Cork.
I should like to compliment the Minister and his predecessor on the help given to regional game councils. I have always felt that with the pattern of our farming we could never have sufficient game and wild life. Now with all the forestry and the help given, pheasants are quite common in most areas and woodcock and birds hitherto unknown in these areas are appearing. This is largely to the credit of the Land Commission for their co-operation with the game councils. I should like to compliment the game councils on their work in vermin control. More sanctuaries are needed and we look to the Land Commission to provide them.
The Land Commission have a very big job to do. They need more money and that money will have to be found. Farms are coming on the market every week. They are making present-day prices and the Land Commission will be expected to pay those prices. In most areas there are many very small farms, and some big farms which could and should be bought by the Land Commission and divided. Next year more money should be made available to buy this land and divide it amongst the right people. We must ensure that the right people get it. I should like to emphasise the point that it should be rented for a few years to the applicant to give him an opportunity to prove or disprove his worth.
The only notable feature of the Minister's opening speech is the fact that an extra £1 million is being made available this year to the Land Commission for the cash purchase of land. When you look at this and examine it closely you will see that you will not purchase very much land for £1 million. In case the public and the farmers who intend to sell land may think that the Land Commission are paying money ad lib for land purchased I believe not more than 2,000 acres can be purchased for this £1 million and not more than about 26 people will be resettled. If the additional land is to be given to smallholders, not more than 50 people will be satisfied.
The Deputy is joking. Is he serious?
This is true. The closer you look at it the more you will see that not more than 50 people will be satisfied by the provision of this additional sum. The Land Commission are doing good work but they are completely swamped in rural areas due to the lack of staff. The Land Commission cannot function properly in the years ahead unless the staff in provincial towns is increased substantially. I fail to understand why this is not being done. It is hard to understand how a small office staff of four or five people can handle all the applications for processing and sub-division in a county like Kerry, how they can handle the cases referred to them for recommendation in respect of consents under section 45 of the Land Act, 1965, and how they can carry out surveys as requested by head office. They must also find time to deal with public inquiries and to deal with correspondence.
The Land Commission should reconsider their attitude to what I would call the indiscriminate use of stop notices on the sale of holdings. There must be a considerable number of cases under consideration by the Land Commission at the moment where sales of holdings have been held up and where stop notices are renewed at the end of three months. People write to the Land Commission when they hear a neighbour is selling his holding, and then they think the Land Commission should put a stop notice on this place. Due to the inadequacy of staff in the local office it may be necessary at the end of the three months period to renew the stop notice. This should be very carefully reconsidered and stop notices put on only when necessary.
Hear, hear.
The Land Commission have the power to buy land at public auctions, and I cannot think why they are not doing it. If a vendor knows the Land Commission are interested and will bid at the auction, the sky is the limit so far as the price of that farm is concerned. There is nothing to prevent the Land Commission from doing what other purchasers do, that is, getting an agent or local solicitor to bid for them at the auction.
In some cases the Land Commission were notified well in advance of sales and auctions that certain holdings were for sale and that if they were interested they were invited to bid. If they did not do so a stop notice was put on the holding. This leads to confusion, misunderstandings, delays and irritation to the people concerned, particularly the vendor, who wanted the money for business purposes. The Land Commission should concentrate more on acquiring large rather than small holdings. By purchasing large holdings in congested districts more people would be satisfied. In all probability land purchased in quantity may be cheaper per acre than small holdings. There is a tendency for farmers' sons engaged in industry to take up farming on a part-time or specialist basis. These people should be given an opportunity of buying a small holding.
I cannot understand why the Land Commission will compete for a farm with people backed by another State agency, namely, the Agricultural Credit Corporation. There is a lot to be said for the suggestion that the section of the ACC which gives loans to persons to acquire land should be administered by the Land Commission. An option should be given to farmers to redeem the annuities or rents outstanding on their holdings and to allow them to have free holdings. Administratively it would be a big problem, but not an insurmountable one. The collection of these rents annually and half-yearly must cost the Land Commission a considerable sum. The time has come when the Land Commission should seriously consider setting up a new section for a short period to calculate exactly how much is outstanding in respect of each holding sending out a circular to each landowner giving him the option of redeeming the rent at a certain price and giving him a month or six weeks in which to consider the position. If this were done, I believe that a considerable number of farmers would redeem the annuities and that in return there would be a saving to the Land Commission in respect of collection expenses.
In some cases there are long delays on the part of the Land Commission in dealing with subdivision applications. Perhaps the main reason for this is the inadequacy of staffing of offices in provincial towns. These delays are the cause of much inconvenience and annoyance to purchasers of building sites and to solicitors also: they involve additional work for all concerned. I am aware that the section of the Land Commission dealing with these matters is overburdened with work, and if additional staff are required they should be provided.
There are long delays, too, in dealing with applications for consent under section 45 of the Land Act in respect of the sale of certain types of land to non-nationals. The Land Commission should take a more liberal view in so far as rock land and mountain land are concerned. I often wonder whether it is the case that the Land Commission are trying to cut down on the acreage being acquired by non-nationals merely for statistical purposes. Decisions in respect of rock land and mountain land which is of no grazing value but which may be useful for development purposes at a later stage should be reached as quickly as possible. At least, there should be a decision one way or the other within a period of a few months at most.
Another reason why the Land Commission should concentrate more on the acquisition of large holdings rather than small holdings is that, apart from an increasing number of people going into part-time farming, more people are specialising in various aspects of farming—for example, market gardening, pig rearing or the fattening of calves or sheep. As far as possible, small holdings should be given to people who are prepared to concentrate on one aspect of farming.
Regarding the activities of the Forestry Division, we have made very good progress down through the years both in regard to the acquisition of land for planting and in regard to the actual planting of such lands. However, the Forestry Division should be more realistic. It is necessary now that they be prepared to pay a much better price for land than they have ever paid in the past. I suggest strongly to the Minister that he arrange to increase the ceiling price which the Forestry Division may pay for land. Apart from the commercial value of our forests there is a social issue involved also in this context in some areas, where employment in the local forestry is the only employment available. Therefore, as much money as possible should be made available for forestry. I am aware that the grants payable to farmers in respect of planting are being increased. I would suggest that, if possible, a maintenance grant should be payable also. A substantial number of holdings in the West and South-West comprise certain acreages which are suitable only for afforestation purposes. It is my opinion that a maintenance grant is as desirable as a grant in respect of planting.
In conclusion, I appeal to the Minister to consider carefully the suggestions I have made in relation to increasing the staff of provincial offices and to the ceiling price for land for afforestation purposes.
At the outset, I should like to wish the Minister well in his new office. If one can judge from the amount of work that goes to this Department from my constituency alone, he will be kept very busy.
Every public representative today is faced with continuous questioning in regard to all matters relating to land. I suppose that the greatest reason for the emphasis that is on land today is the fact that livestock is now so valuable and, of course, our entry to the EEC has been responsible also. The Land Commission are in for a very busy time and this raises the question of providing adequate staff for the Department, as was pointed out by Deputy O'Leary. On two occasions here I tabled questions to the Minister's predecessor in relation to increasing the staff at Sligo and at Carrick-on-Shannon. The then Minister, Deputy Flanagan, later replied that he was satisfied that there was sufficient staff. I visit those offices regularly and I am quite satisfied that the staff there could not possibly deal with the amount of work to be done. As elected representatives, we go into various other offices and we see a group of clerks and typists. In those offices there is one girl, the inspector in charge and his staff of five or six. That is entirely insufficient. I am asking the Minister to examine this with a view to increasing the staff. When the weather is good those men try to do the field work and do the office work when the weather is wet. It is necessary to increase the staff and get on with the work. There is much work to be done. We have called time and time again and in many cases we cannot get more than a simple acknowledgement from those people because they are so busy.
We have nothing in the Sligo-Leitrim area except small holdings. The previous speaker concentrated on bigger farms. We would, too, if we had them but we have not got them so we must concentrate on small holdings. Seldom do we get a farm of 90 or 100 acres. The Land Commission are always delighted when one brings one of those farms to their notice. The Lissadell estate took over 12 months of hard work on the part of the Land Commission but when it was completed they had something to be proud of. Dealing with small holdings is a difficult and boring job.
A common problem in my area is connected with forestry. We, as elected representatives, are in favour of planting no land while the local small farmer is anxious to obtain it. He has lived through difficult times and if there is land going it should go to him. I do not mean to reflect on the Forestry Division because there are no more dedicated workers in the country than the foresters who are doing an excellent job. The forest around this country are a credit to them. However, now that the change has come and our livestock have become so valuable and people have become fond of the land for the first time in 50 years, in all cases if the local farmer wants the land by all means give it to him. Some people would say this would create unemployment, that it would deprive our forestry workers of employment. I do not think it would. There is an amount of work to be done on the cutting of timber and looking after the existing forests. I have always favoured, but particularly of late giving the land to the local farmer if he wants it. On a few occasions we have had protests in my constituency about the acquisition of land for planting. The land was not of a high quality by any means but it was useful for people who are not familiar with land of high quality.
We are sometimes asked about land for landless men. It is difficult to tell a young man who has been reared on a farm and has worked hard on it all his life and now wants to get land of his own that because he has no land he cannot be considered. I always felt that was rather unjust. That young man could be as successful as any farmer in the country. I suppose we must look at it from the Land Commission angle too. If we gave land to landless men we would have very little land for anybody but there should be some exceptions to the rule.
Small and not so small holdings are being bought by wealthy people. I have seen quite a lot of this in my area and the time has come when something will have to be done about it. People who hardly know what they are worth in money move out through the country and buy 20 acres of land outside the door of a young man with eight children. The person who buys the land does not want to pay income tax on his bank account. The other man may be on unemployment assistance. The sooner this is looked at seriously the better for everybody. Professional people who are rolling in money and are in the lap of luxury are buying up land wholesale around big towns and out the country. It is a shame that this should be allowed to happen. I would ask the Minister to take particular note of this because it is something we should be alarmed about. When such land is bought and a group of local farmers make representations about it sanction should be stopped. The Land Commission should say that if the local people do not want it that person can have it. If it was made known to the people that cash was being paid for the land we would not have as many secret deals being completed. Even the Land Commission are hoodwinked in many cases. They do not wish to be harsh or severe on people who are growing old and wait until the farmer passes on. The next thing they discover is that the land has been sold and the money paid nice and quietly. Land is being sold by old people because they want cash and do not want to have anything to do with bonds.
This has proved an obstacle to the Land Commission. It would serve as a double purpose if local farmers were allowed to have their land divided and the owner given cash by the Land Commission. Another matter which is causing concern in my constituency is the long delay from the time a farm is purchased until it is divided. People cannot understand why four to five years must elapse before farms are divided. The Land Commission do not buy land until they are satisfied that it is necessary to relieve congestion. Before purchasing land the Land Commission always make sure that they have local genuine applicants for the land but nevertheless five to six years elapses before it is divided. In some cases land has been held for ten years and then auctioned at a high price.
An increase in the number of staff would go a long way towards easing this problem. It is a very complex problem for the hard-working officials in the Land Commission. So many snags arise in the acquisition of land that these officials must be careful. I have discussed this matter with them and they have informed me that in some cases they must go back to the farmer ten times in order to sort out problems.
Problems have arisen in my area in relation to migrant farmers. One such farmer who has changed from his own home to a Land Commission house has had to pay £1,000 in order to extend his accommodation.
There are thousands of small plots of land along the west coast from Ballina to Donegal but we have been told that they are too small to be taken over for division. I can never understand why a plot of land cannot be taken over for a local farmer. This man would pay for this land in the same way as the farmers who would benefit from division in other areas. The Minister should instruct the Land Commission to acquire such small plots and give them to adjoining farmers. In a lot of cases this land is going wild.
It is important that a stop should be put on the sale of land if it comes to the notice of the Land Commission that there are genuine applicants for it. When local farmers approach the Land Commission about a farm which is offered for sale in their area and suggest that it should be divided among them their suggestion should be listened to. Under no circumstances should such farms be sold. The Land Commission would have no problem in dividing the land because the farmers concerned have expressed their interest in it. Such action would lead to greater harmony and help to solve the congestion problems.
On a number of occasions when I made representations on behalf of people who were interested in the division of land I was informed that they did not qualify because they had a job. I believe that this should cease. No man can stay on 14 to 20 acres of land and hope to keep a wife and children without having a job to supplement his income. I hope this will not be used against any young man who returns from England and makes an effort to settle down on a small farm. This man has no other choice but to seek employment and to use this income to improve his holding. Any man on a small farm today must seek employment if he wishes to remain on that farm.
I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister the fact that we have large areas of bog throughout the west that could be divided. It has been said that the people are getting fond of the land but the people are also getting fond of the bog again because of the high cost of fuel. People are again cutting turf and such land would be of assistance to them.
I notice in the Minister's statement that in the EEC it is hoped to be able to retire farmers from 55 to 65 years. I should not like to see that happen. We have all received complaints about people who get gratuities and pensions and who then find good jobs. The same thing would happen if farmers were retired at 55 years. However, no matter how enticing the conditions I do not think many of them would retire at this age because they are interested in their work. Public officials are required to retire at 65 years but they are not happy at this prospect. If farmers retired at 55 years it would mean a considerable increase in the number of applicants for the limited number of jobs available. Generally farmers of 55 years are fit and unlike former times they have machinery to do much of the work on the farm. There is no reason why farmers cannot remain in active employment on their farms for many years after they reach the age of 55. I would not advise the Minister to pursue the proposal regarding early retirement.
Previous speakers referred to the matter of the market value of land. I have been told by the Land Commission that they have authority from the Minister to buy land at market value and this is right. Why should a man bid £1,000 for land which the Land Commission will get for £800? Land is fetching a colossal price today and it is only right that the Land Commission pay the same as anyone else.
We should be glad that our people are proud of the land. When I first became a Deputy some 12 years ago I received many requests from smallholders who wanted to sell their holdings. When agreement was finally reached the people were delighted with the £400 or £500 they received. Today we speak in terms of thousands of pounds when we talk about selling land. For the first time in 50 years the people are proud of the land. I want to see the land divided and given to the people. For too long we said nobody would stay on the land but nowadays people are leaving towns and are establishing their homes in rural areas. We are all proud that that day has come and eventually it will mean an increase in the population in rural areas.
In dealing with the Department of Lands we tend to discuss the operations of the Land Commission more than any other aspect. This is natural because it affects many of our constituents in rural areas. One matter which has always puzzled me— and I am no wiser today than I was 20 years ago—is with regard to the effectiveness of Land Commission policy. Are we getting the best value for the money being provided for the Land Commission? Are we progressing towards the aims to which the Land Commission were directed when established, namely, the improvement of farms and ensuring that uneconomic holdings are brought to a viable state?
Ministers have had varying views on what constitutes an economic holding. I am sure the Land Commission are long enough in business to know that this cannot be measured in acres and that any attempt to do so is fraught with the greatest danger. They have probably found this out during the years as a result of different stands that were taken on this matter. Have we consolidated and provided economic holdings at a faster rate than the accumulation of uneconomic holdings? Have we been getting value for the millions of pounds of taxpayers' money that has been invested in this effort and, generally, has the whole effort been worthwhile?
I have frequently asked why there is not greater emphasis on helping the holder of an uneconomic farm to help himself in his own way. I am sure it is not beyond the capacity of the Department of Lands to find some means of determining what amount of money could be made available to these people. Those who have uneconomic holdings could be told that money is available on certain terms; they could be asked if they could solve their own problem, if they could find part of a holding which might be added to their own farm. This would obviate the necessity of using the more costly paraphernalia which is a necessary part of Land Commission policy.
We should have done something on these lines during the years. There have been some efforts made but they have been lacking in conviction and in drive by those responsible for selling the idea to the people who need their help. This is my query regarding the direction, the work and the progress made by the Land Commission during the years, and particularly during the past year which is the one now under discussion.
While accepting the present mode of operation, I am concerned about the method of approach in the present policy of the Land Commission. I am particularly concerned as to whether there is uniform application of acquisition procedures. Is the same yardstick used from district to district or even within the same district between farm and farm? Who decides what farm may be acquired in a given area? Are there people outside the Land Commission who have a vested interest in bringing to the notice of the Land Commission lands they feel should be acquired? What yardstick is used in the process of acquisition where the acquisition is contested and the landowner is not prepared to accede to approaches of the Land Commission but the land is ultimately acquired, the acquisition is further contested and goes to the Land Court? To what extent do the Land Commission's determination, intention or wish to acquire the land operate to determine the verdict of the court? What is regarded as a good defence by the person contesting the acquisition? Above all, is the availability of suitable alternative land on offer a good defence against proposals to acquire land from those unwilling to deal with the Land Commission?
In other compulsory acquisition procedures such as those used by local authorities an almost unsurmountable obstacle to a compulsory purchase order succeeding where contested, would be the fact that the objector could point out that there was available suitable alternative land. I feel this is a necessary provision and a necessary means of putting a stop to the gallop of a CPO in the case of local authorities; and no less do I feel that in the interests of the owner of the land, no matter how wayward he may be or is regarded by the powers that be, in this case acquisition proceedings should fail if it can be shown either to the Land Commission, the Land Court or to any other court of appeal that a suitable alternative acreage of land was freely available and was not sought or taken over by the Land Commission. In such circumstances and where despite that the Land Commission and court have decided the acquisition proceedings shall go ahead, is there any recourse to the ordinary courts of the land, any means of further contesting the acquisition, any place where the validity or justice of the acquisition may be contested on perhaps wider grounds?
How is it that within districts in the same locality certain lands are taken over when adjacent to them, and certainly suitable for the same type of congestion relief, there are lands that have been let and are known to have been let for generations and no proceedings have ever apparently been instituted against the owner by the Land Commission? I wonder if the Land Commissioners, the Minister and his Department are fully aware of these local circumstances which perhaps now, because of the enhanced and growing value of land, become much more obvious and more of a talking point in rural areas than they were in the not-too-distant past when land was going for hundreds of pounds, not thousands as in all cases talked about today.
Whatever the cause there are anomalies in the operations of the Land Commission. I am sure this is not the intention of the Land Commission but the instances are there and I suggest that, starting from now and without any witch hunt as to why this was not done or that was done in the past, would it not be possible to ask the inspectors and their staff to have a closer scrutiny made of their own districts and check not only on what has been acquired and what it is proposed to acquire, but also on how this compares with what is available and should be taken over and which perhaps has a worse history than lands already taken or proposed to be taken. An effort should be made generally to have land acquired uniformally and also to ensure that it is seen to be acquired uniformally, a consideration which must be continually borne in mind particularly in a matter as touchy as land acquisition in a country where acquiring and keeping land is something towards which our people seem to have an inbuilt disposition.
There is also the issue of the uneconomic holder being allowed, or even positively encouraged, to find his own solution which would relieve the Land Commission of a great deal of work and cost them much less. If they were to estimate what it would cost to provide uneconomic holders with adequate additions through the Land Commission, or substitute new holdings, I am sure that if such a capital sum was available to these uneconomic holders and they knew the terms on which they could use it, they would drive a far better bargain for that money or could get an equally good addition for much less money than the Land Commission. Undoubtedly, the Land Commission are seen coming a long way off and in many cases the puffer is available for any public sale. Such people I suppose are useful; one might say they do a service and are no doubt paid for it, but it is a service that costs bodies like the Land Commission very dearly. In most cases Land Commission agents are identified at the auctions even though nobody has been told, perhaps, except the solicitor concerned. People are very quick to put two and two together despite secret approaches that may be made by the Land Commission not to give the game away and reveal their interest.
There are other cases where the reverse happens, where the Land Commission have allegedly gone in and after some spirited bidding between themselves and ultimately only one other bidder, the Land Commission succeeds in acquiring the land only to find afterwards that the person against whom they were bidding is the one and only suitable client for allotment in that area and subsequently—fair play to the Land Commission—he gets the allotment. They themselves outbid this client at the auction, neither of them knowing the other. This is a case where the lack of knowledge of what was going on works very much to the disadvantage of the Land Commission, whereas in the previous type of case it is their being known and their hand being seen that works. It is easy for them to do these things in the best way. They try, but in many cases they come out losers whether they display their hand or try to keep it secret. It would be better if the supervision and expertise of the Land Commission were available at all stages. I am not suggesting that the money through the Department of Lands or through the Vote should be made available willynilly to those who have uneconomic holdings. It should only be under the jurisdiction of the Land Commission, and with the supervision of their officials, that people should be allowed to find a solution to their problems with public money. It is only in that context that it would be possible.
I suggest to the Minister that he should examine this position. Over the years in his own profession he must have acquired a wide knowledge of the comings and goings that take place in regard to the acquisition of land, the division of land, the consents to the subdivisions, and the sales of lands. These things are being complained of as taking too long. It is said that more staff is required. This could also be said in regard to the Land Registry, which is closely allied to the operations of the Land Commission in regard to the giving of land. I am aware that there have been considerable delays on the part of the Land Commission and the Land Registry. In many cases where long delays have occurred it has been found that the complaints were not wellfounded and that, in fact, the local clients who were seeking or awaiting the consents in regard to registration could not properly blame the Land Commission or the Land Registry, which in many cases had not received the necessary documents months after they were supposed to have been sent to them. The people handling these affairs in the country should tidy up a little before all blame is placed on the Land Commission or the Land Registry. The blame is often passed to both these institutions in cases where this is undeserved. They should not be blamed entirely. They are not at fault in all cases where there are long delays.
There is also the matter of Land Commission priorities in connection with the getting of land. I am not concerned about the order of priorities. I am concerned about a particular type of farmer who has consistently, since I came to this House 25 years ago, upheld his absolute claim to first priority. I refer to the conacre farmer, who is probably confined to my own county but who also exists in other counties. I do not mean a fellow who speculates on grazing for three or four months in a year, taking land in one parish this year and another next year. I am talking about the conacre farmer who is fully equipped as a tillage farmer and who has his own machinery and the knowledge necessary, and whose family have in many cases been operating on the same land, even though on the 11-month system, for two or three generations back and who may not have a square yard of land of his own. His chance of owning a farm in the future is not too bright.
I come from a county where we have congested areas and uneconomic holdings. Migrants have been moved from there to other parts of the country, and even to other parts of the county. The most pressing and urgent cases we have to deal with are the conacre farmers who are fully equipped and who are trying to earn a livelihood from tillage farming and who have a record of taking land as their fathers and grandfathers did before them. In many cases these men take land on the same estate or at least in the same area. What will happen to these people? Where one is given an allotment, three are told that an estate has been acquired and the land on it being given to migrants. They are put on the land these conacre men have worked for generations. Some people in the county are moved from the west of the county to the east of it. They are taken off uneconomic holdings. An estate may be divided up into allotments and the result is that extreme pressure is put on a great many of the conacre men who have been tilling that land and working it with their own machinery and equipment for years. Such men are forced to go further afield to continue their operations.
If all available land is alloted to migrants the conacre man will have to get out of farming altogether. These men are some of the best farmers not only in Donegal but in the entire country. They have to be, because of the economics of the position. They have been paying increasingly high rents on a letting basis over the years. As the amount of land for their operations becomes restricted, following the operations of the Land Commission in the relief of congestion generally, not only are these people upset but they may have to pay still higher prices for land. Some of their very big farming neighbours benefit from this as well. These small conacre farmers have had a raw deal. Many of them have been driven out while some of them exist and manage to do well. I do not know how they do it. They pay high land prices.
I ask the Minister and the Land Commission officials, as I think I have asked every Minister since I first sat in this Dáil, to make some change. I have had some grudging success.
I say that without any reflection on the Minister, who made some change, but I say "grudging" in regard to real performance. I am asking again that the genuine conacre farmers in my county—and in other counties where they may exist, and there are a few small parts where this does obtain—be given the highest priority in regard to their claims for land allotments. They are entitled to this, and are in no way inferior in their claims because they do not own land. I come from among all types that the Land Commission deal with and, in my estimation, no other class can take priority over these conacre farmers when it comes to the allotment of estates on which they themselves, for a lifetime have operated the conacre system. If their claim was taken to the highest court in this land and the Constitution was pleaded, I believe it would be established that constitutionally they have a right that is inferior to no other to have these lands allotted to them. I would ask the Minister to give very serious consideration to this group of people who are being decimated by the good works of the Land Commission, although they are the finest farmers we have; they had to be because otherwise they could not exist at the costs and prices they had to pay.
Other Deputies referred, in passing, to this matter of going for the bigger farms and estates. Within the last year and a half the biggest single holding in a certain part of my constituency came on the market publicly, well advertised, the Land Commission being fully alive to it, in the heartland of congested farmers and farms. It was sold at a bad price. So far as I know, the Land Commission were not even represented at the auction. I wonder why? What is wrong that this should take place? Subsequently the same Land Commission were busily engaged, not one and a half miles away, going after 30 or 40 acres and going to all extremes to get the 30 or 40 acres; and only a week before they did not appear at an auction where there was another 30-acre farm going. I cannot explain this. I am being asked often enough by people who have been affected by these operations, or who failed to get the allotments they might have got from this large holding of which the Land Commission failed to take any notice.
The Minister and the Land Commission must examine this question, because not only does it give the appearance of unequal treatment as to the landholders but it also gives the impression of a haphazard approach by the Land Commission which I am sure it is not their wish to portray to the general public, because the acquisition and allotment of land is a very touchy subject. However, these are facts, and while I shall not use the names and addresses of these people I shall certainly be happy to give them to the Minister and his officials for their information to enable them to pursue these things a little further.
I would also add my voice to the plea made by other Deputies for the redemption of annuities. It might not be a bad idea from the Government's and the Department's point of view to try to make these calculations and let them be known to the annuity payers throughout the country. It might work not only to the satisfaction of the landholders but to the Department as well if these small, innumerable payments could be terminated by the payment of a lump sum. I do not know whether this would be a very big task, but, perhaps, it could be attempted on an experimental or pilot basis to see what the response was. To do it for the entire country without knowing what the outcome was likely to be would, perhaps, be a foolish operation. If it could be seen to work in some area that could be regarded as a cross-section it might then be pursued for all other annuity payers in the country.
I would again ask: what is our ultimate aim in regard to the afforestation programme? In the earlier years when our forests had been nearly wiped out and when very little new planting was taking place and that only on a private basis, it was not difficult to realise that we needed more trees as quickly as possible. I am not suggesting we are planting too much or too quickly, but I am asking the question: do we know what we are planting for, and are we satisfied that our mode of progress is in the long-term, a good economic proposition and in the national interest?
This is a time when we might be given the benefit of the knowledge of those who are intimately engaged in afforestation and who are undoubtedly fully alive to the facts and figures in relation to my question I would also ask whether consideration has been given to the plea made over the years which might be even more justified now, to give greater emphasis to planting in the areas of distress, that is, the unemployment areas, the areas where, generally speaking, development on the industrial front has not been very brisk or is non-existent, and where there is not likely to be much change in the immediate future. Is the fullest emphasis being laid on the utilisation of the land there which is suitable for plantation, not merely for the purpose of taking out the thinnings and ultimately mature timbers but, on a long term basis for the purpose of providing, within those regions where those large scale plantations might take place now and in the immediate future, facilities for the processing of those forests in the years to come? I particularly pinpoint this because it surprises me at times to find that within sight of Dublin you have afforestation going ahead. The acreage may not be large but there is the evidence of planting and of State afforestation.
Are we in the position that we have nowhere else in the country that would derive more benefit from an immediate planting programme and ultimately great benefit from maturing timber? Have we nowhere else in the country where we could utilise our resources rather than plant trees near to the city of Dublin where there are more outlets and opportunities than there are in the far regions of the west, particularly west of the Shannon? I feel there has not been sufficient emphasis placed on the overall economics of where we should devote our too scarce resources in afforestation. This should be related to the overall economic factors obtaining in the different parts of the country. I would plump for exclusive planting in the western belt with a long term proposition to utilise and process every part of those forests in the west and not somewhere else.
I think particularly of my own county, isolated as we are—people are now beginning to realise that we are isolated although over the years many were not fully alive to the fact that we were there at all—where some afforestation is going on but where there could be a lot more. This would be of great benefit to the county. This applies also to north Leitrim, parts of Sligo and parts of Cavan, and the extreme north-west of the country. What is the situation there? As our young forests have developed, as the thinnings have come through, as the accumulation of this growth goes on I detect, not without some particular reason, that instead of there being an effort to make this north-western area not only a timber producing area but a processing area, and to build up afforestation to carry such processing, there seems to be a very decided move against this being done.
I believe this is influenced by the demands of the two existing large processing plants in Scarriff and Waterford. Waterford was held back for a long time because of the Scarriff situation. I believe the north-west is being denied development in like manner by these two enterprises who fear that the supplies for their operations may not be adequate in their own area. They keep the north-west as a reservoir from which they may draw what they need and if they do not need it we can send it to Coleraine or to any place where we can get a few bob for it. I do not think this is being done in the best interests either of the development programme of the Forestry Division or in the best interest of the development of that basic industry in the north-west of the country. I hope the Minister will take another look at this.
As time goes on we have more forests and more planting is done. I now make a case for planting in the north-west. The Minister should see if the time has been reached when something in this regard should be done which would be a great boost to this area. This would enhance the value of the work done by the Forestry Division in that area and would encourage them to do more to feed such processing as could be contemplated there.
I do not think we are very conscious of trees in our everyday lives. I suppose this is to be expected, particularly from those of us who come from areas which were denuded and had not the least sign of any sort of forest or worthwhile growth as we grew up. Would it be regarded as an undue imposition if one were to say to the Minister for Lands that he should have a talk with the Minister for Local Government, on the one hand, and with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries on the other, and come to some understanding with those two Ministers? They should see if, in the case of farm improvements, farm buildings, land project work—which is for the improvement of the farm and the farmstead—and in the case of dwelling-houses—where developments, new constructions and improved structures are the daily operation of the Department of Local Government—planting by way of shelter belts and some landscaping by way of putting back the long-forgotten trees which are gone from most parts of our country, except for the operations of the Forestry Division, might become an obligatory operation for the people who do this work. I am making this suggestion because it might make our people a little more conscious of the benefits, visual and otherwise, that tree planting can bring. This might be as good a way to encourage it as any other instead of saying that this might cost so much. Perhaps in those days of Government generosity it might be possible to give a few pounds more in order that tree planting might be encouraged in conjunction with the overall job of land project work, farm buildings, reconstruction work or new housing and reconstruction of houses in the rural areas in particular. The Minister for Lands might like to carry this thought to his colleague the Minister for Local Government.
I would like to say to the Forestry Division that their overall operations have certainly been good and their work is to be seen in many parts of the country. I would ask them in the midst of all this development why was it necessary to make quite a number of workers redundant over the last few years? Many of those people gave the best years of their lives to forestry work. They are now made redundant at an age, particularly in my part of the country, when there is little prospect of alternative employment for them. With the land available to the Forestry Division and more that they could profitably acquire, it seems a pity that those people should be scrapped at a stage when our country generally is in a developing condition. This is very obvious in regard to young plantations and forests. The Minister for Lands, perhaps prompted by the message that the Minister for Local Government might take from my few words here, might do something for those people because he, in his professional capacity outside this House before he became Minister, was very well aware of these redundancy problems in my county and, indeed, in all counties throughout the country.
There might even be a possibility even at this late stage of reviving jobs for some of these people. They are still available. There is no outlet for them and they are too old to emigrate, except as a last desperate resort. There is land unplanted and there are jobs to be done. I am sure no one will agree more than the foresters on the spot that there are forests needing attention not alone in my county but in every other county as well in which these people who were let go 12 or 18 months ago could now be usefully employed. I would ask the Minister to take special note of this and to examine the matter to see what he can do about the situation.
I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and I wish him a successful but not necessarily a long ministry. I should like, too, to pay tribute to the staff of the Department of Lands for their dedication and their zeal. The Minister must feel a little like a father confessor because of all the complaints he has heard, the bulk of them an indication of the fact that the problems that exist are similar all over the country and are not particular to any one area.
Deputy Blaney raised some very pertinent matters in relation to land acquisition. I am perpetually being asked one question by people whose lands have been acquired: they want to know why the lands of Mr. So-and-So down the road have not been acquired. I have no answer and, unless the Minister can help me, I will go home after this debate still without an answer and I shall have to ad lib when I am asked these awkward questions.
Blame the Government.
As Deputy Crowley says, I can blame the Government.
So long as the Deputy blames the right Government, that is all right.
To give an example of what happens—it is something for which there seems to be no explanation—a man who works in Ballina had a farm of 35 acres acquired by the Land Commission. He was making his living away from this holding and acquisition was fair enough, and what annoyed him was the fact that a professional man, who had no land, was allowed to buy an adjoining holding. There is no explanation for this kind of apparent discrimination. I am not saying it was discrimination but to the particular man involved it seemed like discrimination of the highest order. I could give him no satisfactory explanation.
Many speakers referred to conacre farmers. There are many of these in my constituency. There are many smallholders who depend for their livelihood on conacre farming. A short time ago one of these came to me. He had a small farm and he had farmed adjoining lands for some 40 years. He told me the Land Commission were stepping in and taking that holding away from him. There were some congests in the area but, in solving the particular bit of congestion, more congestion was actually created because those from whom lands were taken away were dependent on those lands for viability.
I am glad to see that a sum of £1 million has been allocated for the cash purchase of land. I will not pretend for one minute that this will solve the problems with which the Land Commission has to deal but it will make life easier in the area I represent for the Land Commission inspectors and ensure a greater allocation of land. One of the biggest factors operating against acquisition and the voluntary sale of land to the Land Commission has been the fact that people, especially older people, did not trust land bonds. They wanted hard cash into their hands. It is hard to blame old people looking for money rather than paper bonds.
I should like to compliment the Minister's predecessor, a colleague of mine, on this change. This was something he thought deeply about. I know that this Estimate is in the main his Estimate and I am glad that the thinking he put into the Estimate has been preserved by the present Minister. I would ask the Minister to ensure as far as possible that this money is spent for the benefit of smallholders because these are the people who need the money most. The man with the large holding can do with land bonds; the smallholder needs the hard cash to tide him over.
There would appear to be some difference of opinion in the Land Commission itself on the question of people buying small holdings with the help of section 5 of the Land Act. In reply to questions I addressed to the Minister today at least two holdings could have been purchased by smallholders with the aid of money under section 5, but the Land Commission would not give its consent. In one particular case four smallholders four years ago tried to buy a holding but the Land Commission refused its consent. Just a short time ago the holding came into the possession of the Land Commission. There were protracted negotiations about price. All that could have been sorted out four years ago. Possibly three or four people will now get some land from this particular holding.
Can the Minister tell me what effect the Auctioneers Bill will have on the supply of land to the Land Commission? To use the Minister's own words, auctioneers rendered a positive service towards agreement in undecided compulsory cases. There have been various reactions from auctioneers around the country and I have a feeling they will no longer be of such assistance to the Land Commission as they were in the past.
One of the legacies we could do without in Mayo is estate roads. I am glad the Minister for Local Government is in the hot seat because this is something about which we have been complaining for some considerable time and not just since this Government took office. Where large estates have been divided the roads between them become the responsibility not of the Mayo County Council but of the tenants themselves. With much more traffic on them, the roads are in a very poor condition and cost huge sums of money to maintain. They can now qualify for money possibly under local improvements schemes, and can be taken under the control of the county council. The Minister for Lands should consult with the Minister for Local Government to see whether the various county councils could take over the roads when they are in a good condition with the result that they could be maintained on a yearly basis.
I should like to congratulate the Land Commission on the very much improved designs of their houses, yards and out-offices. This is very noticeable all round the country. For too long it appeared that the idea was to stick up four walls, put on a roof, and it did not matter what the house was like inside. I am glad that a considerable amount of thought has been put into the design and planning of their new houses.
In Mayo quite a number of holdings on which there are houses have passed into the hands of the Land Commission. It is nothing short of criminal to see houses that have been in the possession of the Land Commission for a number of years actually rotting away while, at the same time there is a severe housing problem in the county. In the past there was some liaison between the local authority and the Land Commission, but not enough. Something positive and definite should be done to ensure that houses which are in reasonably good condition when the Land Commission take them over are not allowed to decay.
There was a famous case near Claremorris some years ago in which a man with 13 children was within 100 yards of a Land Commission house and could not get into it. In that case there was a bad breakdown in the liaison between the Land Commission and the local authority. I would ask the Minister and the Land Commission to ensure that the local authority are pressured to take over their houses at the earliest possible opportunity.
In common with many other speakers I would urge the Minister to use his influence to speed up the division of holdings. For many years the Land Commission had a policy of developing land banks. In itself this is good and I can fully appreciate and realise that. When there is a possibility of the speedy acquisition of other holdings, the land they have should be divided. Land leads to litigation and feuds in rural Ireland. This was demonstrated by J.B. Keane in his play The Field. Most of us who have experience of rural life know that what he dramatised is true. As a solicitor in a rural area the Minister is probably well aware of this. He must have dealt with many such cases, and he will be only too well aware of the consequences of such feuds.
In reply to a question put down by me today, the Minister said there were 17,550 acres of land in the hands of the Land Commission in Mayo and, of that, 6,150 acres could be classified as arable. From my experience over the last number of years, and from the approaches which have been made to me since I was elected to this House, I can tell the Minister that most of this land is not in the hands of the smallholders in whose hands it should be, but in the hands of people who could pay the very high fees which were asked in the past number of months. Land prices have rocketed and so also have the lettings which the Land Commission are getting for their land.
These 6,000 acres which the Land Commission have would make a vast difference to the economy of Mayo and a vast difference to approximately 250 to 300 farmers. They should be divided as a matter of urgency. The staff who left Mayo should be replaced. An inspector left Ballina some months ago and I do not think he has been replaced yet. The Minister also informed me that negotiations are going on for over 8,000 acres in Mayo at the moment, and that almost 1,000 acres have got to the stage where there is negotiation on price. That means that in the very near future there will be 7,000 acres of land to be divided in the county. It is essential that this is done quickly. Possibly the Minister could let me know at some stage, not necessarily tonight, how much of this acreage it is intended to divide in the coming year.
There is an understandable sense of frustration in the farming community in Mayo at the moment and this has been reflected in some actions which are not within the law. The fault is not that of the small farmers but of the system, which involves considerable delay in dividing the holdings. It is commonplace to see written slogans of which none of us are proud. I can understand the feelings of very small farmers, whose families have no other means of livelihood but the land, when they see people from eight, ten, 20 or 40 miles away buying land beside them, land which has been in the hands of the Land Commission for anything up to five or six years.
I should be grateful for information as to the kind of land included in the 10,500 acres. Would it be land suitable for afforestation, is it commonage or is it mountain? If it is suitable for afforestation, taking into account the population structure of the area, a very good case could be made for an urgent scheme of planting. As I have said, I do not know the type of land involved but some of it must be suitable for planting.
Deputy Blaney's words come to my mind particularly when I remember that some years ago industrialists came to Ballina to set up a chipboard manufacturing industry. It went to the planning stage but for some reason or another, known only to the industrialists concerned or to the powers that be at the time, the planning stopped and that was the end. There is room for an industry such as a chipboard factory in that general area. I should like the Minister to say whether some of the land I have mentioned could be used as an amenity area for the benefit of the tourist industry and in this context I urge the Minister particularly to see that any land of this type will not be allowed to fall into the hands of non-nationals.
It is gratifying to notice the Minister feels strongly that the land should be given only to those who can benefit by its use and who can make the best use of it. Therefore, I would ask him to consider seriously the allocation and the availability of land to young people, particularly to those who have been through farm schools or colleges of agriculture and who can make the best possible use of the land they might be given. Not only will they benefit themselves but they will help the economy of the State. From this point of view I hope the Minister will seek the advice of such young farming organisations as Macra na Feirme. I would single out Macra na Feirme particularly because of the work they have put into their recent survey. I hope the Minister will encourage such young farmers' organisations to continue this type of work and I hope he will seek their advice.
In the west generally there is particular interest in EEC directives concerning poorer farming areas. They are interested especially in County Mayo where 56 per cent of the people rely on farming as a livelihood.
I am glad that the Minister announced that 25,000 acres were planted in the last year. I hope this will be extended because the benefits to the nation will be many, the least of which will be the use of native timber in the house building industry. Use of native timber would to a large extent combat the increase in the price of imported timber and, therefore, would enable us properly to continue our housing programme.
It was good to hear the Minister say in his speech that it is intended to continue the extension of the forest walks programme. The invitation issued to the public last year to avail of these walks was appreciated by many people who got a chance to see the work being carried out by the Forestry Division and who were given an opportunity to enjoy the results of this work. I hope the proposal to extend these walks in our forests will be expanded.
I hope the Minister will tell us what the situation is in regard to rumours about damage near the forestry school in my constituency. A lot of people have said there has been considerable damage to trees in that area and I hope the Minister will tell us whether this is so.
I should like to compliment the gamekeepers for the job they have done and I am glad to see that this was the subject of special mention by the Minister. He has said that money is being granted towards this work which is not only of benefit to the conservation of wildlife but will also enhance the tourism potential of many areas throughout the country.
The Minister devoted a considerable part of his speech to forest fires. Severe damage has been done in my part of the country through what I believe to be carelessness and I suggest that the Minister might consider taking this part out of his speech for circulation to the various local authorities. The benefits accruing from the prevention of forest fires can be vast both from the point of view of helping the economy and preserving recreational facilities. There is also the question of the safety of the people living near our forests. This is an area in which the Minister might seek the help of Macra na Feirme and other youth organisations. I have no doubt they would be more than willing to help. It is a very sad sight for one to pass a forest and see where trees that had taken so long to grow had been destroyed by fire. Again, I wish the Minister well during his term of office.
Mr. Ahern rose.
Deputy Enright.
In relation to a question——
Has the Deputy got a point of order?
Yes. It is in relation to a question to the Minister for Labour to ask him when he intends——
I am afraid that does not seem to be relevant.
I am asking——
I take it that the matter relates to Question Time. Consequently, it is not appropriate that it be mentioned at this time. I am calling Deputy Enright.
Thank you very much.
At the outset, I wish the Minister well in his new appointment. If he brings the energy, the skill and the intelligence to his Department that he has shown in other facets of public life, the Department will benefit greatly during his term of office.
I note that for the year ended 31st March, 1971, the Estimate for this Department amounted to £3,955,000, that in 1972, the amount was £4,161,000 and that for 1973 the Estimate totals £4,447,000. This year the Estimate which is greater than ever before is for £5,627,000. This is an enormous increase on the figures for previous years and is worthy of special mention here because we had reached the situation in which the Department of Lands was regarded as a place to which a Minister could retire for a couple of years to live in peace and quiet and would not have to worry too much about what was happening. It must not be forgotten that, primarily, this country is an agricultural one. For this reason the Department of Lands is one of the key Departments. The question of land is close to the heart of every Irishman and, of course, is very important in financial terms also. Until such time as we recognise fully the importance of this Department we will not be giving the proper consideration to our most precious possession which is our land. Therefore, the increase of £1,200,000 in this year's Estimate is very welcome and I compliment the Minister on having introduced such an Estimate.
During the next few years I hope that the Minister will come to grips with this Department, that he will lead an active policy in the Department. Now that we have entered the EEC, our agricultural industry will become more important than ever and we must be prepared to make a special effort in regard to its development. In this regard it is of the utmost importance that land be utilised to the fullest extent possible. We must ensure that those people who are utilising their land effectively are given every assistance and every financial aid that it is possible for this House to give them. On the other hand, those people who are not prepared to utilise their land fully should be encouraged to find another way of making a livelihood because we cannot afford to leave any of our land idle. It is my hope that during the next few years the policies which the Minister has been creating will result in all of our land being put to the greatest use possible. If this situation is brought about we need have no fears in so far as our future in Europe is concerned because the full utilisation of our land will ensure that our economy is safe.
Another aspect of this Estimate that I welcome is the decision by the Department to pay £1 million in cash for land purchases during the coming year. In yesterday's Irish Independent I note that 4 per cent land bonds were being quoted on the Dublin Stock Exchange at £66 and that 8 per cent land bonds were being quoted at £78. I do not know who are the unfortunate people who sold these land bonds during the last few days but it is certain that when they sold their lands to the Land Commission they were given land bonds which were supposed to be at par, whereas they have found that within the past few days these bonds have decreased in value. A gross injustice would be done to any person who would happen to sell land on the public market to a friend or a neighbour and who would find, on seeking payment for that land, that for each £100 he was to receive he would now receive only £95. I urge the Minister strongly to ensure that all land bonds that are outstanding now will be redeemed as soon as possible. I know this will require a lot of effort and time and that the Minister for Finance will have problems in this regard but as one who has experience of how these land bonds work, I am aware that the system is very unfair. Therefore, I am pleased that a real effort is being made now to have this system discontinued and that cash purchases will be brought into operation. As one, too, who deals with people involved in land sales I know that most people are willing to sell their land to the Land Commission because they realise the good work being done by that body. These are generally people who are either retiring or who are switching from farming to some other business. However, if there are any who are not prepared to sell to the Land Commission, one can hardly blame them when the Land Commission offer them payment by way of land bonds. I believe that even the most recent issue of land bonds are not at par at present. I am open to contradiction on this but I believe it to be so. This is not good enough and I hope it will be remedied. I compliment the Minister on having made a major step forward towards paying cash for land. I hope we will see the day when all land is purchased for cash. This is very important and urgent. If the Land Commission ensure that this happens they will be doing very important work for everybody in the country. I should like to compliment the Land Commission on the fact that at present they are certainly paying the market price for land. I am delighted that the Land Commission are no longer working on a shoestring. They are now well able to go into the open market and pay the market price. If they continue to pay the market price and pay in cash many people will be willing to sell their land to the Land Commission because all Irish people realise the great importance of land and they are happy to help in the national work of land acquisition and division. I am delighted to see this £1 million, and £1 million is a lot of money, going towards the purchase of land in cash.
The Minister mentioned the different EEC directives in regard to the acquisition of land. He mentioned the development plans. They are called development plans in Europe but I believe the ordinary agricultural instructor will call them farm plans. There is a great necessity for close co-operation between the Land Commission and the Agricultural Advisory Service. There is a certain amount of liaison at present but I believe it is not sufficient. The Agricultural Advisory Service is doing a good job. When the Land Commission are considering the division of an estate they should consult with the local agricultural adviser. In exceptional circumstances an adviser may have a particular friend and recommend that particular friend but generally I believe the agricultural adviser will recommend the people he believes to be entitled to receive land. Land Commission inspectors come and go. In Laois/Offaly Mr. Fahy has been replaced. The person who is second in command, the man who goes around to visit farmers, unfortunately changes frequently. It takes a long time to study the people in an area, to study the farms and the type of farming carried out. If the inspector is changed and if the Land Commission officer is changed it may be that the agricultural adviser will be the person who is longest in the area. Therefore, I should like to see a much closer liaison between the two. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the Minister for Lands should have discussions to see how they can co-operate and work this hand-in-hand.
I shall deal briefly with the different EEC regulations in regard to foreigners buying land in this country. One of them is the case where land has been left abandoned or uncultivated for more than two years. As far as I can see there is very little land abandoned at present. Grass is considered as a crop. This would rule out 99 per cent of the land so I do not believe there is much likelihood of foreigners moving in under this one. In the case of agricultural workers they must have an unbroken period of at least two years on farms in this country. An agricultural worker would not be the type of person who would come in and take land overnight or acquire a lot of land in an area. The exchange of land is reasonable and when these directives are properly ironed out this is one we will have no great fear of. The rural leasing system which they have in Europe is again something of which we need have no great fears. I do not believe this system will interfere with the acquisition of estates. Finally, there is the one under which people who are self-employed in forestry are in a position to buy wooded land. If somebody comes into an area and sets up a logging business or a sawmill he will be very welcome. I do not believe the local people will have any objections to those people acquiring land.
I believe that with these directives there is no great fear of Europeans coming in and buying out estates here. I do not believe this is likely to happen and I am certain the Minister will study the situation so as to ensure against any likelihood of its happening. I also believe that the directives issued in this country, and which have been mentioned by the Minister, will adequately ensure that this does not happen. Nevertheless, I feel we should be careful on this matter. I feel sure that the Minister will ensure that the Irish people will be the ones who will be permitted to purchase land in this country.
While discussing land problems with a number of people I discovered that they are not worried about Europeans buying land or acquiring big estates; they are more concerned about others in this country who are in a position to buy such big estates. People who are outside farming should be prevented from acquiring estates in the region of 400 to 500 acres. An estate of this size would support at least six families. When big estates are offered for sale the Land Commission should inspect them and carry out investigations to see if local farmers are anxious to increase their small holdings.
This is a matter about which the Land Commission should be active. We are reaching the situation where people outside farming are rocketing the market price for land. This is not right or fair. Only those with an agricultural background, or those whose only source of income is derived from farming, should be allowed to buy land. However, I believe that a man with a son pursuing an agricultural course in a college, and who intends making agriculture his livelihood, should be permitted to purchase such land.
We should not allow the situation to arise where there will be people with big farms merely as a sideline. A lot of these people put money into land because land is appreciating all the time. All they need to do is put cattle on it and they realise a handsome profit as well as avoiding income tax. This is no way to utilise one of the country's most important assets. When an estate comes on the market the Land Commission should move in immediately to see if local farmers can benefit by its division. If these farmers can benefit the land should be acquired and divided without delay. A lot of people who are engaged in occupations other than farming have purchased land with the result that the ordinary small farmer is unable to compete on the open market.
Another matter which has caused me concern in connection with the operation of the Land Commission is the manner in which land acquired by the Land Commission is let. Land acquired by the Land Commission should not be held, as at present, for up to five years, and in some cases ten years. When this land is let it is allowed to deteriorate through lack of manuring and proper care. I accept that the Land Commission, to a certain extent, manure this land but it is not near what is required. It is wrong that the Land Commission should have such long delays before distributing the land.
When the Land Commission are letting lands they take no cognisance of whether an applicant is a small farmer or a big rancher. They do not even investigate whether the person who is bidding for the 11-month letting of the land is a farmer. The Land Commission should set an example in this regard and see that the people who are taking the land are engaged in fulltime farming. They should also give preference to those with small holdings.
I accept that the Land Commission, who must work on a limited budget, must obtain the best possible price for the land. I also accept that the Land Commission experience difficulty because they must advertise the land for letting publicly. However, after a person has been given the letting of the land a Land Commission inspector should investigate him to see if he is a big farmer or a farmer at all. If he discovers that he is not a farmer, or that he is the owner of a very big holding, the Land Commission should take steps to ensure that he is not given the letting of that farm the following year.
At a number of auctions which I attended recently as a spectator I saw the owners of small holdings, men with families, being unable to outbid the big landowner. The bidding started at £15 per statute acre and went up in £5 bids to the staggering figure of £35 per acre. No small farmer could afford to take land at this price because it would realise little or no profit. It is a very unfair situation and should be stopped. The Land Commission should investigate this matter and see if any change can be brought about.
In regard to the division of land the Land Commission should give first priority to farmers who live in the area where a farm is for division. It is very hard on people living in an area where such a farm is being divided to see outsiders being brought in by the Land Commission. This land would enlarge their holdings and improve their lot. They have grown up on these estates; they have a major claim to this land and should be given priority when it is divided. I would ask the Land Commission to give serious consideration to this matter. When people come into an area it is some time before they know about the land, what crops should be grown and what fertilisers they should use. They can get advice from the agricultural adviser but it takes years to know a farm and the land and to get maximum value from it. The same problem does not arise where local people are concerned and I would ask the Minister to give them first priority when estates are divided.
Consideration should be given to those people whose main business is farming; I am referring to people who keep a small number of cattle or pigs, not to the well-off farmers who have also other lines of business and can afford to buy land. These "landless men" will never be in a position to buy their own farms and they should be considered by the Land Commission when land is divided. This would mean a change in Land Commission policy but it should be done.
The leasing of estates is common in Europe. The Land Commission should help people who have taken conacre for many years and they should give them a trial to see if they are capable of working a farm. Initially the Land Commission could lease land on a three-year basis and, if they work a 25-acre or 30-acre farm, the Land Commission should allot a farm to them. Because they have no land these people will get only five acres from the Land Commission but this is no use unless they are in the market garden industry and are on the outskirts of Dublin or a large town.
The Land Commission should increase the size of farms. At the moment they consider a viable farm is in the region of 45/50 acres of good land but this is not sufficient. Farming is becoming highly specialised and competitive. We are reaching the stage where we will have to specialise in milk, beef or grain crops but to do this it is necessary to have sufficient acreage. The Land Commission should change their policy; they should state that a viable farm should have 70 to 85 acres. In future years a farmer on a smaller holding will find it difficult to survive. Farmers must be on the same level as people in industry; they must have the same hours of leisure and their incomes must be on a par with those in other sectors. For this reason it will be necessary to have holdings of 70 to 85 acres.
The Department of Lands deal also with rivers, lakes and forests. At the moment this country, in common with countries throughout the world, is facing grave problems with regard to pollution. Some time ago Deputy Crowley raised this matter on the Adjournment. I have referred on a number of occasions to the problem of pollution but, irrespective of the Estimate on which one speaks of the matter, one is told some other Minister is responsible. The report of the inter-departmental committee was issued recently and it has been sent to councils throughout the country. They will report back and I am confident action will be taken in the matter.
As the Department of Lands have responsibility for waters, lakes, forests and lands, I think the Minister for Lands would be capable of tackling and overcoming the problem of pollution. This is a problem that must be tackled immediately and I hope his Department will take steps to combat it. I realise the Minister may not be able to give any definite information on the matter in his reply. I hope that next year the Minister will be able to tell us that he has taken certain steps towards ensuring that our environment is properly looked after because it is important and all of us have a responsibility in regard to it.
I have the latest report of the Minister for Lands on the Forest and Wildlife Service. Many of us who are from the country should look around us and see if the number of birds is increasing or diminishing. I believe most of us will admit that much of our wildlife is dying out. Whether the use of artificial manures and the treatment of crops, because of the poisonous nature of the substances involved, may be a factor, I do not know, but I understand that young birds eating crops which have just been treated, may be poisoned. I do not think that the Department of Lands can do anything about this: I mention it just to show the situation. Forests can help to bring about a situation in which birds that are being wiped out would be given proper areas specially conserved for the breeding of wildlife.
One finds difficulty in speaking on this subject because so many people have responsibility for it; it is hard to know where to go. Certainly, there should be some special area of responsibility and I think the Department of Lands are the body which should have authority over the breeding of wildlife. Nature has its own way of functioning and birds destroy many insects which affect crops so that it is important that the birds be protected.
As regards the fish in our rivers and lakes I was appalled to read in the Midland Tribune some nine or 12 months ago that about 45,000 to 50,000 young trout had been poisoned due to effluent being discharged into a river from a factory. I am glad to say that situation has been remedied and I hope it does not happen again. I mention it in passing to show that it does happen in lakes and rivers all the time. Last week in, I think, the Connaught Tribune, I read that the local authority officials in Galway were very happy with the present situation in regard to pollution in their area. I am afraid we are all a little happy and complacent and the blame lies on all of us because we should not be happy about the pollution situation. We should be making every effort to combat pollution. That is why I am saying this tonight.
I compliment the Minister on his comprehensive report to the House on the working of his Department. The increase in his Estimate is certainly welcome. So are the improvements in regard to land bonds. It is good to see that many of the land annuities that began to be paid in 1903 will no longer be a burden on some of our farmers. I am glad this is happening and so I am sure are the farmers. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out in such detail the position in regard to people who qualify under European rules. I also see that he has a special fund for people who wish to purchase land to add to their estates. This is necessary. I understand it applies mainly in the congested areas at present but I hope it will encompass all areas in the future and so apply in LaoisOffaly in the years ahead so that farmers will be able to get loans from the Land Commission with which to purchase additions to their holdings.
I am glad also to see that money is being provided for extensions to dwellinghouses and that in some cases loans may be made to enable farmers to erect dwellinghouses. I am pleased by the improvement that has taken place in the work of the Land Commission in providing dwellinghouses for farmers. Their work in this connection is very good. The Land Commission are to be congratulated on much of the fencing they carry out. I know many of those engaged in Land Commission work in my own area, labourers, gangers and so on, and much of the fencing work they carry out is excellent. Their fences are a really top-class job.
I had some criticisms to make tonight but in general I had only congratulations and best wishes for the Land Commission. I hope that what I said was fair criticism and accepted as such. I trust the Minister will have many happy years in his office.
I am in broad agreement with Deputy Enright, especially when he speaks of a conservation policy and about the Department which should be responsible for it. I agree with him that the Department of Lands is the Department where most effective work can be done in regard to the environment.
The Minister referred to our statutory provisions regarding conservation and how unusable they were and how hard they were to implement. He considered the law to be too lax in many cases and said he would try in the near future to introduce legislation which would bring progress in this field. No matter which side of the House one is on one welcomes such a policy. It is very important that as soon as possible we assign responsibility for the environment to a particular Minister and I think the most suitable Department is the Department of Lands.
I hope nobody will go away with any wrong impression when we speak of birds and wild life; there might be some misinterpretation. Certainly, for a considerable time we have been neglecting our environment. To use a modern word we have been "mugging" nature for some time, and nature is faltering and unless we give it the kiss of life through conservation based on planning and teamwork it will die, and we will also die with it. Conservation becomes more and more important every day of our lives. The more industrial development we have, and the more sophisticated the ways of living we acquire the more we take something, in some way, out of our environment which is hard to replace unless we have a very definite plan and framework on which to work. Conservation based on planning and teamwork is needed because modern technology and high living standards are changing the environment. They are changing it to such a degree that the environment could be destroyed. I do not think the environment can survive without positive action.
Pollution can destroy health and recreational facilities. Pollution control is essential to keep tourists coming to many areas but, more important, to keep the health we have enjoyed in this country up to a high degree. The land is our habitat; it is an amenity and the source of our food, minerals and timber. The land must not be laid waste or squandered. It should be used productively for gain, or for amenity, or for agriculture or for forestry. The countryside is also an educational asset and a research laboratory for the science of ecology in the relationship of animals and plants and their environment.
Unspoilt countryside is what I would consider a necessary social asset, a place where people living in cities can refresh themselves mentally and emotionally. In Ireland at least much of our culture comes from the country. We must not cut ourselves off from our cultural origins. Ireland has very important biological importance such as the Burren, and certain summits with Arctic alpine specimens. There is an area of unusual flora in the extreme south-west and uniquely interesting areas of blanket-bog in many parts of the country. Down through the years we have been responsible internationally for a number of plant species which occur only in the south of Europe, apart from in this country. Ireland has areas of outstanding international importance for the breeding of sea birds, mostly in Kerry and in the Mayo islands. We also have scenery that is varied and pleasant.
As I said in the debate on the Office of Public Works, we have our monuments and our props of history in these monuments. We have small and large farms. We have rivers and the sea. We are rather unique in Europe in that being such a small country we have a vast amount of land bordering on the sea—nearly 2,000 miles. One can visualise why we must be so concerned about protecting our environment. We have so much to protect that any haphazard effort would be tantamount to treason on our part.
Unfortunately, Ireland has less forests than any other comparable country in Europe. Most of our forestry is visually monotonous. There is very little native woodland. Killarney is an exception to that. A few large estates remain where in some instances there is poor land which should be taken over by the Land Commission and utilised as public parks. In some cases the soil may be poor. Where possible we should have a dynamic policy of afforestation. This would be a very sound investment. Economically it would have the advantage of utilising land which has not been utilised before. It might be attractive to tourists and supply a social asset to our people, an extra place where they could go to escape from the pressure of urban and city life.
The Irish environment is now altering more rapidly than ever. The reasons for change are not altogether the same as those in many other countries. A far more fundamental problem than even technology in other countries exists here where we have this tremendous drift to the cities. Some of our areas are becoming lopsided. It would be an exaggeration, perhaps, to describe them as becoming over-populated but in relation to the facilities available they are over-populated. This brings a further problem for the managers of the country.
In the Republic we have half as many people per square mile as Scotland has, but this is being affected by the movement from rural areas to cities. The alteration in farming techniques is also causing a drift from the land. Less people are becoming involved in agriculture. That is counteracted slightly by some of the better-off members of the community drifting back to the countryside or building cottages or summer houses as recreational centres for themselves.
We must never forget how important tourism is to the Irish economy. The preservation of attractive countryside is an economic necessity which should be given high priority by the Government. The openness of the Irish countryside means that great scenic damage can be done by one eyesore. Rural architecture needs to be of a high standard because there are dwellings everywhere. Unlike Scotland or Norway, there are no really large tracts of uninhabited land anywhere in Ireland and, as I said at the outset, increasing industrialisation brings many problems in its wake.
The most obvious change in the Irish countryside is the destruction of our existing habitat. It has occurred initially through bog development and drainage. Bord na Móna gave an estimate that by the year 2000 all bog capable of being economically worked will have been cut away and by that date it is hoped as well that there will be 1,000,000 acres of State forest, twice as many as in 1970.
We cannot but view with the greatest disquiet some of the harmful practices being carried out in our land. Large areas of upland bog are eroding rapidly due, in some cases, to overgrazing, while careless and often illegal burning of bogland may lead to a degradation of the complexity of its animal and plant communities, and in wet areas continued grazing by sheep tends to eliminate heather, there again reducing the grouse numbers. It is no excuse to say this is happening in other areas of the world, because especially in some of the areas where it is happening they are not as dependent as we are on the influx of visitors for our most important industry, tourism. It behoves each and every one of us to take all possible and necessary action to ensure the preservation of that environment which foreigners cherish so much.
It is vital that all these changes in the countryside should be considered in terms of their ecological effect as well as their visual and economic ones. In particular, forestry policy should be directed much more towards the maintenance of soil status. In brief, we will have to know more about the ecology of the countryside. We need more experts to study what is happening there, and I do not think we have those experts available to us at the moment. Therefore we are suffering because we have not recruited or, indeed, trained enough people to advise on these complicated problems.
There has been a phenomenal increase in the amount of leisure time available to our own people. This again should surely provide us with a very strong reason for environmental conservation. Irish town dwellers, like any other town dwellers, show the world-wide tendency to drive straight into the countryside on fine days in their greatly increased number of cars. We also have a large number of tourists coming here in cars every year, and the result is more and more cars, perhaps, going into our State forests and other areas which might not be the most suitable areas into which to allow cars. With caravans, and caravan parks, holiday homes, picnics increasing at such a rate we continuously have the danger of forest fires. I think the Minister said in his speech that 1,300 acres were destroyed last year through forest fires. That is not a very great amount, but it is nevertheless, an amount about which we cannot afford to be complacent.
If we plan badly for our development, our coasts and lakesides will become the most threatened areas. What we need is more country paths and nature trails for walkers but few additional roads. On the other hand, forestry roads are being opened up probably to an undesirable extent to cars. We have reasonable facilities for organised games but poor facilities for the increasing number of people walking, climbing and canoeing. Better recreational facilities are needed for these people, especially for the people nearer Dublin who must have a desperate problem in trying to engage in that kind of exercise or recreation. Increased access facilities are not being matched by the arrangement of paths, the provision of rubbish bins and car parks to channel visitors away from areas such as sand dunes which are vulnerable to erosion.
The Forestry Division can play a very important part where car parks are erected. They are experts on tree planation. Undoubtedly the growth of trees around an area can hide eye sores. I think it was rather significant that in Whiddy Island one of the conditions laid down by our local authority was that there should be a tree plantation provided in order to ensure that the tanks were not visible from the roadside and that they were not an eye sore.
Unfortunately pollution seems to increase with our technological progress and its control must surely be a very important aspect of our total policy of conservation. In Ireland we have allowed all main forms of pollution, except that by radioactive substance, to become serious problems largely because of our pursuit of a policy of industrialisation at any cost and also because of the inertia of both the Government and the local authorities. It will become far more costly to clean up the mess than it would have been to require proper purification equipment initially.
I suppose the central authority and the local authority can hardly be blamed for not being farseeing enough or awake enough to see the dangers. We were all tremendously ignorant up to very lately of the dangers of pollution. Now that we have become aware of it—and indeed in some cases have seen the results of it—we have no excuse for not taking very positive and strong action in the matter.
There is another anomaly we come up against, and maybe this is not so much for the Minister for Lands but he must be concerned about it. Our local authorities do not need to apply for planning permission for the development of roadways or putting up buildings. I am particularly concerned about the damage that can be done by the widening of roadways. Bulldozers are used to wipe away very important trees or shrubs. I was in Rome last year and the present Taoiseach was with me. We remarked on the fact that a tree which was about to fall had a concrete slab put up against it to keep it there. They considered a tree so important that somebody had to build a block of concrete to make sure it would not fall. In this country we have our local authorities clearing away trees and using bulldozers to sweep away all before them.
We are all to blame for this. I am a member of a local authority and I am well aware of what happens. Surely it is time we woke up to this. How long does it take a tree to grow? It takes hundreds of years in some cases and yet with a modern bulldozer or the electric saw it takes a matter of seconds to pull down what took hundreds of years to grow. It is time we dealt severely with anybody who perpetrates such acts. Local authorities should not be exempt from planning control. They should be subject to the same planning control as the ordinary individual. The Minister might consider this, although it may not be a matter for his Department.
The Deputy knows that it is not a matter for the Minister's Department.
In relation to the widening of roadways where trees are cut down it must be the concern of the Minister for Lands. We must not allow this situation to go on without proper control being exercised. I know there is some Act in the Minister's Department which governs the preservation of trees, but as far as I can see it is not working very effectively. He should take a personal interest to ensure that his Department are notified where any road widening occurs if there are trees in the vicinity so that one of the experts in his Department may be brought in on the matter and asked for advice.
In my constituency this problem is multiplied even more because our Planning Act lays down that west Cork is a special amenity area. We have a constant battle going on between preserving that very high amenity which we have and the natural anxiety of our people looking for industrial employment in the area. Where there is any doubt we should come down on the side of conservation. If we do not, the conditions we apply to such industries or structures should be so stringent as to minimise to the nth degree the danger of polluting the environment. As far as I know, the only order in the Minister's Department is the Tree Preservation Order.
(Cavan): That is correct. It is a statutory provision which makes it necessary to get permission to fell trees. That order is operated by the Department of Lands.
Is it operating?
(Cavan): It is. There are prosecutions brought from time to time.
Have the Department had any prosecutions against local authorities in the matter?
(Cavan): Not that I can bring to mind, but there have been prosecutions in the last 12 months.
I am glad to hear that at least that order is being implemented because I was under the impression that a lot of devastation of our trees is taking place and no action is being taken against it. However, that is something we can discuss later. I will bring to the attention of the Minister what I have seen happening in areas in my constituency to see if they have got permission from the Minister's Department.
Another very important aspect of the Minister's Department is that of our national parks. We are very fortunate in having Gougane Barra just outside my constituency. This is very much used by the people of Cork city and county. The amenities provided there are of tremendous benefit to the people in the area. As long as we have parks like Gougane Barra we need not worry too much that people may not be concerned enough about the dangers of not preserving our countryside properly.
I discussed proper patrolling of these parks and areas and a proper warden system with a very eminent gentleman some time ago and I thought his suggestion that we should all be patrollers and wardens was very good. He also said we should ensure that any acts of vandalism we saw being perpetrated in our parks were immediately brought to the notice of the authorities. That would have the twofold effect of not alone ensuring proper control of our parks but also instilling in people a civic pride in what is their property. The Minister's Department are just holding it in trust for the people. This does not get through clearly enough at times. If we put the onus on people to be the guardians of their parks we would have a much more responsible attitude from them.
I know the Planning Act clearly requires development plans to promote conservation but I do not think we are doing enough to protect rare species of plants or animals because of their rarity. I suppose a shortage of staff is at the root of this. There is so much going on in all parts of our country at the moment that it must be impossible to have people to go here, there and everywhere to ensure as much as possible that these amenities and rare species are preserved.
As I said, the tourist potential is enormous. In 1967, 137 million people visited the USA national parks. That alone indicates the tremendous thirst and hunger there is for this type of recreational amenity. Under the auspices of the Minister's Department we should go even further and develop national parks in the true sense of those words. Not alone would it benefit our own people but it would be an added attraction in the case of American visitors. Money spent in this direction would be a very sound investment.
We are particularly fortunate in having natural nature reserves. More could be established either by acquisition from or by agreement between landowners and the conservation body. Deputy Enright spoke about the need for proper consultation between the farmers and the conservationists. I agree that cash is more attractive to potential vendors than are land bonds. The farmers will no longer accept land bonds though the possibility is that such bonds today keep their value better than money does. There is a problem and the problem will not be solved except through the medium of a really attractive proposition. I know people who would be delighted to part with some of their land for conservation purposes.
Technological development has not, of course, been altogether one-sided. Technology has not been persistently and consistently destructive of the environment. New techniques ensure a better return from the land. A great many acres which were unproductive in the past have been brought into good heart and rendered fertile as a result of technology. This is a very, very important investment. There are, however, areas which it is not economically feasible to try to make fertile and these lands should be utilised to the full for afforestation. There is a world-wide demand for timber. Even more important than the economics of the situation is the fact that trees provide shelter for both fauna, flora, birds and insects—all vital in preserving the correct ecological balance. As Deputy Enright said, nature and her works are not for us fully to comprehend; the cycle goes on unceasingly and it is most important that we do nothing to upset the delicate balance.
The history of parks is an ancient one and some specialists in the newly emerging states have only lately rediscovered the principles of park management, principles which were known as long ago as 1669 to Louis XIV of France. He it was who introduced what was then regarded as a masterpiece of legislation based on sound ecological knowledge, legislation on which a great many laws are based today.
Forests are part of a vast system of natural defence. They also constitute the best method of checking erosion, particularly in watersheds. Trees should never be felled in the upper basins of watercourses even when the agricultural motivation is strong and the temptation is to remove timber so that more land can be put under the plough.
The Minister's Department are playing a very important role indeed, so important a role that no one should cavil when the Minister seeks still more money. The Minister has got a modest increase this year. He deserves credit for this because it cannot have been easy getting even such a modest increase in the light of what would appear to be more urgent and more pressing demands. Nevertheless, the Minister did get an increase. It is a beginning. We hope he will utilise the increase to the full and keep on pressing for more.
I had laid a good deal of emphasis on the environment and its protection. All of us have to adapt to our environment. We must not aggressively exploit it. Therein madness lies. Man's impact on his environment has increased down through the ages. So has his control over the forces of nature. In exploiting the natural resources of this planet too often, either through ignorance or greed, we have abused our surroundings and disturbed the dynamic equilibrium on which life depends. We have sadly depleted those resources without any thought for the future generations.
Surely there is a strong obligation on all of us—not necessarily the people of this House but all the people living in Ireland at present—to hand this country over in the same state as we got it, or in nearly the same state as we got it.
(Cavan): Or a bit better.
Yes, if we can control some of the dangers I see emanating from industrialisation. While industrialisation is very desirable, nevertheless a price has to be paid for it. We must ensure that the price we pay for it is not too great. Our adaptation to our environment has to be approached on a new basis, that of working in harmony with the natural processes, and of conserving the qualities of our lives and surroundings.
We all know that nature is always dynamic, that it is ever-changing, and constantly seeking new equilibria. Modern conservation should also be about choice and about change. This means that there is a tremendous onus of responsibility on the people charged with the management of our country for careful planning of what we need and what we will need, whether it be in the town, the city or the country. Naturally it interrelates all our activities. We have agriculture, forestry, housing, industry, transport, leisure, water and wildlife, and their effects and, on top of all that, we have refuse, noise, pollution and, in some cases, loss of aesthetic values. We must agree that together they control the quality of our lives, and that there is a very important responsibility on us to ensure that that quality is preserved and, as the Minister said, perhaps bettered.
Conservation of the environment and our natural resources is an issue of the greatest importance. It cannot be brought home forcefully in a forum like the Dáil or at a local authority meeting, but it should be brought before the people constantly through the powerful communications media available to us. We must maintain and recreate those qualities which will satisfy all our needs and aspirations as well as those of future generations. There is colossal pressure for housing at the moment; houses have to be built somewhere. There is pressure for industry; factories have to be built somewhere. There is pressure for services which go hand-in-hand with industry; these services have to be provided somewhere.
The Minister has a giant-sized task to ensure that, while all these worthy and laudable projects go ahead, his neck of the woods is protected. When we see our countryside being despoiled by something over which we have control, like pylons and high tension wires going across our fields and cities—I hope I am not wandering too far?
I am afraid the Deputy is getting away from the Estimate before the House.
With all due respect I thought it had to do with our environment and the quality of our lives.
The Chair agrees with the Deputy but the Minister would not have the sole responsibility for these matters.
He is a very influential Minister and he could bring to the ears of the proper authority that Deputy Crowley was feeling very aggrieved in this House because action was not being taken in relation to something over which we had some control.
(Cavan): The Deputy thinks that between the two of us we carry considerable weight.
We carry a fair amount of weight. I was trying to say that this type of action is devouring our resources and creating much more disadvantages than advantages. I will leave it at that and I know the Minister will do the rest.
We realise that agriculture and forestry are of primary importance in determining the shape of the environment. Agriculture is in the middle of a major revolution. As a result of technological factors and market forces we have large-scale intensive farming. Larger fields have become commonplace and in some countries prairie farms are becoming a feature of the landscape and soil storms are a potential danger. I do not know what we can do about that type of situation. We have soil being swept into the rivers and into the sea causing further pollution. As a result of larger and more intensive farming units we have more slurry to dispose of. Even listening to myself here tonight I do not envy the Minister his job. It will be very difficult to ensure that all the necessary protective steps are taken.
Forestry is a very important recreational development for our people. I have been observing it for a number of years and I believe that the afforestation of our countryside is not going ahead at the rate at which I should like to see it. While we are doing a reasonably good job, we are still too slow. We are not doing enough. Indeed, we let many good years pass by without taking proper action in the matter. If I go on to the question of landscape planning I may be told it is not a matter for this Minister but for the Minister for Local Government.
That is correct. I suggest the Deputy should direct his speech to the Minister now in the House. I hope the Deputy is not trying to get two bites from the cherry.
The Minister has landscape planners in his Department and I should like to dwell for a couple of minutes on this. The landscape artists are drawing up new plans for State forests. They are trying where possible to work in a proper road system to replace the unattractive chessboard of roads and lanes we had. My suggestion is that our forest roads and lanes should lean more towards recreational rather than purely utility functions. The Department of Land planners would be doing a very good job if they could ensure that forest roads in the future will be more attractive than in the past. As well, more open spaces, picnic and camping sites should be provided. I should like to see close liaison between the Department of Lands and Bord Fáilte, but perhaps I will be told——
The Deputy seems to be following nature's trails. I hope he will wander back to the Estimate before the House.
I will endeavour to do that but I should like again to urge greater liaison between this Department and Bord Fáilte to ensure that maximum utilisation is made of our natural beauty spots. Any meagre funds at the Minister's disposal should be directed in this way. I hope some liaison already exists between the two bodies and that as a result we will attract many more tourists to areas where the Minister for Lands, in conjunction with Bord Fáilte, will have provided the type of facilities I have been speaking of.
The Department of Lands have done a very good job in their reafforestation programme and a stage has now been reached where emphasis on the commercial use of timber has been superseded by the need for greater consideration for planting for amenity and recreational purposes. Of course, I do not object at all to commercial timber. In my constituency there are some State forests: at Ballydehob, 1,500 hectares; Bandon, 839; Drimoleague, 659; Dunmanway, 1,601; Glengarriff, 728; Rosscarbery, 670. By the way, I wonder why the Minister describes them in hectares instead of acres.
(Cavan): For the Deputy's information, 2½ acres equals a hectare.
I had to go out and consult my little notebook. However, there is a sizeable enough area of forest in that district and I am concerned that everything possible is done by the planners to create a new dimension there. There is a fair amount of natural woodland in the area as well and it might not be a bad idea to contemplate some kind of a State park near Glengarriff. I know we have Garnish Island on the sea side, with its tropical gardents, but we should be considering something more extensive.
A lot of work under the heading of commercial timber has been carried out and I would ask the Minister now to open up the second phase of the reafforestation programme, that dealing with planting for amenity purposes, the provision of forest parks and so on. Planners in charge of this phase of the work must have a clear picture of what these places will look like and they must let us know in advance so that we can have a clear analysis of these matters. We could then see into the future the type of planning we will be engaged in.