Votes 34 and 35 are being debated together. They will be voted on separately, if necessary. Deputy Lemass reported progress.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 34: Lands (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £5,627,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1974, for the salaries and expenses of the Offices of the Minister for Lands and of the Irish Land Commission.
(Minister for Lands).
To sum up what I was saying last night, the Department of Lands should be very careful about the type of trees they plant and where they plant them. In 1957 the administration of that time may have thought it right to plant as they did, but when I was the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the national parks I felt that what they had done was absolute desecration. I am glad the last Government took steps to undo the damage done at that time. I hope that wildlife has prospered in the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park.
A profit motive governs the Forestry Division of the Department of Lands. This division have been responsible for the elimination of oak trees which were cut down and replaced by soft wood conifers. This was done with only profit in mind. It had nothing to do with the environment or with the nature or character of the landscape. The only concern was to grow the most profitable tree as quickly as possible. Some years ago there were poachers in our forests. I understand now that these forests are all game preserves. The deer were at risk and in danger of extinction. Sika herds have been introduced and the deer herds are no longer at the same risk. Extra steps should be taken both by the Department of lands and by the Office of Public Works to ensure the elimination of poaching. Some people will shoot deer in order to get a nice piece of venison, but there are also those who shoot for the sake of killing and they leave the dead animal where it falls. Greater protection services should be established to preserve our wildlife.
I understand that another harmless creature, the badger, is now also at risk. I intend seeking permission from my own Parliamentary group to put down a Private Members' Bill or a motion with regard to this animal. The Department of Lands should try to reconcile the views of foresters and conservationists. They should try to see where they might help to improve the natural environment by planting beeches, oaks, elms and ash. Trees of this nature should be planted instead of the coniferous soft wood trees usually planted at present.
In 1972 wood and wood products imported into this country were valued at something like £46,000,000. These imports included paper and board. A sum of £46,000,000 in external payments for wood and wood products should not be necessary. Imports should be confined to special woods required for particular types of building. I do not understand why we cannot grow enough wood to satisfy at least the paper and board industries.
At present 674,000 acres of forestry have been planted by the Department of Lands. That acreage sounds substantial, but I understand that there is an equal amount of land available for development at present. Perhaps the Minister would tell us something about this when replying and whether he has any proposals for speeding up plantation. The Department of Lands must be more selective about the type of tree they plant. They must not engage entirely in planting with commercial profit in view. I do not say that the commercial end of the business is not important. We all know it is.
There are some roads on which I travel on holidays or to meetings on which I used to enjoy a view of a lake or a mountain. Quite often now I see that such a view will be gone shortly because these christmas trees, as I call them, have been planted between the road and the beauty spot. When I was in the United States I discussed the problems of the national parks and the apparent disagreement between the concept of a national park and the concept of forestry. In Chicago and Boston there was one chief administrator for national parks and for forestry. I argued strongly about this, because I felt that a forester and a conservationist could not have the same views. In San Francisco also I had discussions on this subject. I feel that a conservationist and a forester cannot live together and these two interests cannot be adequately represented by the one man. There is a different motivation. The forester wants to grow his tree, to cut it down and turn it into a commercial profit, whereas the conservationist believes that if the tree falls down it should be left there and hopefully regenerate itself. They are completely different concepts and I cannot see how you can have both.
In the United States I discovered that where there was a landscape to be seen from the highway the first tree was planted perhaps 100 yards from the main road; the first line of trees were hard woods and behind them they had the soft woods. The administration of forestry and the conservation of national landscapes and heritage is far more civilised in the US than it is here.
When I took office in the Office of Public Works as far as I could gather that Office and the Department of Lands were at each other's throats. I am very glad that that situation was resolved. I understand that now there is the maximum of co-operation between the two offices. It is wrong to have two Departments with completely diverse views and fighting each other. Both Departments have a very important role to play in our economy. The forest parks are, I think, every bit as important for recreational purposes as the national parks.
One of the most beautiful forest parks I have seen is the one just outside Boyle.
(Cavan): Rockingham.
I should like the Minister to tell me why there is now a charge at this park for visitors. Is this charge being made in order to provide some particular service? In the case of national monuments where charges are made guides are provided. So far as I am aware in this forest park the charge is simply an admission charge. If this is so, I object to it strongly because I believe that national parks and forest parks do not belong to the Government, to any agency or any Department, they belong to the people and the people should have free access to all the natural beauty we can provide for them. Indeed, if possible, we should provide buses at State expense to take children to forests, national parks and nature trails so that they can learn to appreciate what nature has to offer.
Another problem that came up during my period of office related to arterial drainage. The Department of Lands quite rightly drew my attention to the fact that if certain arterial drainage was to be carried out certain lakes which had some rare species of birds or of duck would be dried up and these species would be lost to the country. After discussion between the two Departments the Department of Lands agreed to a minimum of three feet of water and if certain farmers were to lose in respect of land which they might expect to have reclaimed for them the Department of Lands would compensate them. I hope the Minister will continue this policy. Where the reclamation of land by arterial drainage might interfere with special wild life the Office of Public Works should not drain that area below a certain level.
Some years ago when Deputy Haughey was Minister for Finance there was a by-election, the one in which Deputy Cooney, the present Minister for Justice, was first elected. A message came from the then Minister for Finance to all the Ministers concerned with the environment— those in charge of Lands, the Office of Public Works, Local Government, Agriculture and Fisheries and Transport and Power. The Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries concerned, with the exception of one, met the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance said that he felt the Government of the day had not been concentrating sufficiently on matters of the environment. He made certain moneys available to the Department of Lands for a project in County Donegal, a very commendable one which I hope has been successful.
After discussion it was decided that the then Minister for Lands should draft a Bill which would, in effect, set up a Department of Planning and the Environment. I am aware of this because when the first draft Bill was produced I had to make observations on it. I had three objections to it, two of which were not all that serious but one in respect of which I was going to be very firm. I gather the Department of Local Government found a great deal of objection to it. Over the three year period discussions went on. I understand that this Bill is, except for perhaps a few rough edges, ready for introduction. I would like to know from the Minister whether it is proposed to introduce such a Bill. It may be that the Government's views would be at variance with some aspects of the Bill that was prepared but perhaps it could be redrafted to meet the wishes of the present administration. I would like to know if the idea of introducing such a Bill is still on. This is very important because problems of the environment involve the Department of Lands, the Department of Transport and Power, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Department of Local Government, the Department of Finance, through the Office of Public Works, and, indeed, CIE, Bord na Móna and An Foras Forbartha. Does the Minister propose to introduce this Bill? The Devlin Report suggested that such a Department should be established. In Canada and also in New Zealand they have a Minister for the Environment. They did not take away from any other Ministry their responsibility for the environment but the Minister for the Environment has the power to over-rule any legislation introduced by any of the other Ministries. Perhaps something like that would be better than concentrating all the responsibility in one Department. I should like to hear from the Minister whether he proposes to introduce the Bill, in whatever form it may be, which was prepared for him by his predecessor.
(Cavan): Do I understand that the Deputy is referring to a Bill to set up a Department for the environment?
A Bill on the environment was prepared three or four years ago. I understand that Deputy S. Flanagan introduced it to the Government in its original form and that its original form has been changed.
(Cavan): Let us be clear if the Deputy wants me to reply. Is it a Bill to set up a Department for the environment?
I understand that, in effect, that is what it will be.
(Cavan): And when the Deputy's party left the Government it was in an advanced stage of preparation?
That is correct.
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but I must point out that it is not in order to advocate new legislation as such.
I have been given the responsibility to concern myself with matters of the environment and that is why I referred to it.
(Cavan): I do not want to interrupt but I am afraid the Deputy has got his Bills mixed up.
I understand that the last draft was prepared by the Department of Local Government.
(Cavan): The original Bill was a very different type of Bill.
If the Minister will explain it to us that will be all right. I was not directly concerned with it. I was making observations on the Bill which was presented to the Office of Public Works.
Many people have said to me that they wondered were the Land Commission really necessary. I do not know exactly what the role of the Land Commission is. Nobody is satisfied with the way they run their business. Perhaps they are useful in that the Minister can hide behind them and say: "The Commissioners tell me this and that" and, if an unpopular decision has to be taken, the Minister of the day can evade the blame. I should like to hear in detail an explanation of the exact role of the Land Commission, what useful work they are doing, and what contribution they are making to the administration of the Department of Lands. Perhaps the Minister will give me that when he is replying. More important, to my mind, is the fact that he should ensure that there is continuing general progress and that recreational and natural facilities are freely available to all our people.
I should like to pay tribute to the officers of the Department for the work they have done over the years on this very thorny question of land division. By and large, they have done a very good job. No doubt they have been held up by political decisions now and again but, from my long experience of their activities, I must say that they have done a great job on land division. Unfortunately, the pool of land available for division is getting very small. Because of that, when the Department take over an estate or a farm, they should divide it as soon as possible. I know there are many circumstances which may hold up the division of land such as additions to holdings adjoining the farm. When land becomes available it should be divided amongst the smallholders to build up viable farms for them.
In the western parts of my constituency there are certain advantages and in other parts of the constituency the price charged for land is very high. When they are buying land the Land Commission have to pay the market price and they are in competition with others. The price of land has been increasing year by year and when land is given to smallholders they find it very difficult to pay the rent. I wonder would the Minister consider subsidising these people to some extent, at least, in order to reduce the very high cost of the land which they are apportioned. I know this would involve the expenditure of some money but it would do a lot of good. Many people are very slow to take land they very badly need if the price is too high.
Large estates which are taken over are usually given to people who are brought in from outside areas especially if there are no smallholders adjoining the estates. This is good because it brings small farmers out of congested districts. Usually it is the best farmers in the area who get the land, men who have made a success of their small holdings. The holdings they give up are divided among the adjoining smallholders. This relieves congestion in one area and builds up viable farms in another. The majority of these people have made a great success of the land they were given when estates were divided. There may be some who did not come up to scratch but the majority have made a great success of it especially in recent years.
A big advantage the Land Commission have is they go around to the farms and see how they are being farmed before they give the owners more land. We must see to it that land is not given to people who will not work it. As I said, the pool of land is getting very small. Due to the increased value of land, the Land Commission will find it difficult to get portions of land in competition with the general public in the buying of land.
I am sure the Minister will ensure that undesirables with big cheque books will not price the Land Commission out of these farms and he will see to it that this land is available for the Land Commission.
There is still a large proportion of land that is not drained or reclaimed. The Land Commission should interest itself in this marginal land. When travelling through the country one can see large areas suitable for forestry. In many cases this marginal land was drained and brought to a reasonable standard for grazing. Some bog land is being used by Bord na Móna for turf production. In some areas, when the turf was cut, the Sugar Company brought the cutaway bog to a very high standard for grazing. This is a very helpful development. Large areas will become available when the turf has been cut and will make excellent grazing land with the treatments available and when drainage work has been carried out.
I appeal to the Minister and his Department to keep a very close eye on this land as soon as it becomes available, usually in areas where there are small farms there is marginal land. The Land Commission should step in when Bord na Móna are finished and take it over on behalf of the people.
Previous Governments were very wise when they started large scale afforestation. We now realise the importance of the timber industry. A large amount of money is spent importing timber when we should be providing at least 90 per cent of the timber ourselves. I know there are certain types of timber which cannot be grown here. This is a problem we must tackle. We must increase our planting every year. When this State was formed the amount of forest land was very small. Many trees were cut down and there was no replanting but now all over the country there are large areas of marginal lands growing splendid forests. I hope this will continue.
It will be difficult for the Forestry Division to get land suitable for certain types of timber. There is a big pool of land available in many areas. The price of timber has gone up by hundreds of pounds a ton recently.
Value-added tax.
Yes. It would make it profitable for us to treat that timber in a suitable manner. Drying fields are available and more use should be made of them. Timber manufactured and sold from the forests should be put on the market in as good a condition as the timber we import. I do not see any reason why we cannot do that.
I should like to see more hardwoods planted where suitable land is available. We lost hardwoods after the last two great wars. We grow mostly firs and spruce. We should make an effort to plant a larger acreage of hardwood. There is great demand for it as it is suitable for the furniture and other industries.
I should like to compliment the Forestry Division on what they are doing in the tourist areas. They have made space available for recreation and I can assure them that the tourists speak very well of the progress made in this direction. Fire, of course, is a grave danger. I know a number of fires occur in our forests but I wonder how there are not more. There are fire warnings but people are careless. People should be better educated on the danger of fire when they get freedom to enter large forest areas. When valuable acres of timber are destroyed as a result of fire it is a headache for the Forestry Division. In forest areas there should be a water source available for the protection of the forest. There are streams and rivers running through them which could be dammed in certain places and there could be a reserve of water to help fight fire. This is the most dangerous situation the forestry people face year after year. Large areas of forest have been destroyed as a result of somebody's carelessness.
Teachers should impress on school children the grave danger of starting a fire. The number of people using the forests as a source of pleasure and recreation, since roads were made through them, is increasing every year. Much has been done in tourist areas and I hope this work will continue. A forest is one of the greatest assets any country could have.
The numbers employed in forestry have been reduced in recent years. Forestry has been a source of great employment and, from my own observation, I believe that cutting down the labour force is a mistake. A bigger labour force could be employed checking growth and improving the forests in every way. At every stage forests require a certain amount of care if one is to produce good timber. It is bad policy to reduce the labour force.
The Minister should keep on acquiring marginal land in order to keep up the acreage planted. There is competition now from others who are buying marginal land, but land is still available. In times past the amount offered for the land was not reasonable. It was £7 or £8 an acre. Had a reasonable price been paid there would now be a big pool of land available. The price is now increasing and the Forestry Division have to buy the land in the open market and pay considerably more for it. Had they moved in time there would be plenty of land for forestry purposes and we would not be in the position now of having only a small pool available. I urge the Minister and his Department to keep a close watch on the land that becomes available so that it can be acquired for acquisition and distribution and I would urge the Minister to ensure that no one is allowed to buy large tracts of land on a purely speculative basis.
Many say the work of the Land Commission will cease after a certain time. I believe there will always be a place for the Land Commission because estates will be available for acquisition and subsequent distribution designed to make small holdings viable. Now that the Land Commission pay in cash instead of in bonds they will have the country behind them if they implement a good policy of land acquisition and ensure that that land is subsequently used to the best advantage. I am sure there will be progress in the Department because we have a good Minister on the job and he has behind him very experienced officials.
I would suggest that the officials in the Forestry Division should travel abroad to see how timber is treated in other countries so that we will be able to produce here and put on the market the products of our forests in first-class condition.
This country, both North and South, joined the European Economic Community on 1st January last. We are now approaching the end of 1973 and the country is vitally interested in all matters being considered by the EEC, in the regional fund, in the social fund, in the aid for the less viable farmers and in the restructuring of the ownership and tenure of land. The Minister introduced his Estimate at the end of June. He had been appointed Minister only four months earlier and he may legitimately use that as an argument for lack of progress. It is surprising that, apart from a very short reference, he has given no indication as to what proposals he has put to the Government in regard to the distribution of these funds when they become available. Some are only in process of being discussed; in others, no directives have been issued so far. The House and the country would have been interested to know what proposals the Minister has put to the Government and on what particular aspects he lays emphasis. He has not indicated what we should ask for as our slice of these funds. We know that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been chasing after the regional funds. If only 4 per cent of that fund is made available to us it will not help the small farmers very much.
Many speakers have stressed that there is not enough land to go around. They have also stressed that small farming is a way of life that must be preserved. But these small farms will have to be improved and the Department have agreed to do this. There are many young men with the expertise and the know-how anxious to become agriculturists but there is not enough land to cater for them all. We are in duty bound to provide for these and one of the considerations which prompted people to vote for entry into the EEC was the fact that they believed the incomes from small farms would be improved in a number of different ways so that their remuneration would equal the remuneration earned in other activities and other walks of life. The location of industries in such areas would achieve this object.
The regional fund has already done great work among the smallholders in southern Italy by providing industries there. Where industrial work is available to small farmers their income from this, together with the profits there may be from their small holdings, can be ploughed back into the holdings for the general good. Speakers from the Minister's own county, including Deputies Wilson and Crinion, said last night that where this kind of employment is available in small farm areas production from the land improved substantially rather than decreased. We had expected that, as in southern Italy, the regional fund would be available to provide industries in the west of Ireland but if our share is to be only 4 per cent I fear many people will be disappointed. It is wrong that only now are we getting information about it. The Government should have taken the country and the House into their confidence and said exactly what was happening. We have read about the regional fund but there is also the social fund in respect of which no decision has yet been made and no directive issued. What proposals has the Minister for submission as a demand for part of the social fund? Can we on this side of the House help? Can he tell us how things are going? This fund will, of course, help the small farm areas I am talking about but there is nothing in the Ministers speech about it. That was in June last but I do not think that in any of the Minister's statements since has he told us anything about it.
There is another fund, that for less favoured farm areas. Before the holidays I tried to get some idea of Government thinking on this matter but I failed. I do not know what proposals have been put forward in this connection. A directive was issued in regard to this fund on October 1st. I hope the Minister, when concluding, will give us this information. We do not want to drag out this debate. As Opposition spokesman for Lands for the last few weeks I have not gone into the whole matter very deeply, and I do not suggest that my party should continue the debate, but I should like to be told by the Minister how the EC directive on less favoured farm areas will benefit us, the areas it will benefit and what the benefits will be. If he cannot tell us perhaps the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, who should also be interested, will tell us.
There is mention in the Minister's opening speech of the restructuring of land tenure in 1974. That is in the future but it is something for which we must be prepared. The Minister's Department should be, and I am sure are, very interested in this matter. While these points are very important, I do not know what liaison there is between the Department of Lands and the EC. The Minister might let us know about this. I am sure there are civil servants from his Department in Brussels. The Department of Foreign Affairs are the Department mainly dealing with EC matters. If there is not sufficient liaison between the Minister's Department and the EC that can be remedied. I shall not tell the Minister how. In the short time in which I have been considering the Department of Lands I have not come up with proposals but I shall do so and I shall recommend proposals to my party for acceptance, perhaps alternative proposals, to ensure that Ireland will get whatever benefits are being distributed in western Europe.
Returning to the Department's activities on the home front, I think the principle should be—it may be argued that this is a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries—that every acre of land should produce the greatest possible amount of the produce required for our own people and for export. This should be the guiding factor in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. It is within the power of the Department of Lands to deal with the ownership of land. The Minister may say that the previous Fianna Fáil spokesman on land when he was Minister for Lands advocated that the Department of Lands should be abolished. I do not agree with that. I think the Department of Lands which, by and large, is the custodian of the source of the greatest wealth producer in this country should have as its aim, in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, the optimum production from every Irish acre. This opens up a very wide field. It opens up the questions as to where money should be spent and what the priorities should be.
In this country we have three types of land, the good land, the marginal land and the unproductive land. We have, and nobody can deny this fact, some of the best land in the world not being properly used and, in cases, not used at all. There is good land in this country which needs no drainage or reclamation but is not producing a fraction of what it could produce if it was properly used.
In my view this is a problem for the Land Commission. The Commission should ensure that good land which is not producing should not be left idle. It is a matter for the present Minister to decide whether the methods available to him and used in the past are sufficient or whether in the context of the EEC he must adopt new policies or adjust existing ones. We cannot exist in the EEC if we allow, by lack of grants or facilities, land which is not producing its optimum to continue.
Land which was described as marginal 20 years ago is no longer marginal because, with modern machinery and the availability of fertilisers and drainage grants, it is possible to bring it into full production. Deputy O'Sullivan advocated full steam ahead in the acquisition of forestry land, a principle with which I agree, but I would like to flash a warning light in this regard. It should be remembered that facilities are available to owners of such land which were not available some years ago. The introduction of new machinery and the availability of this machinery for hire even in remote areas has meant that marginal land which in the past was only suitable for afforestation can be used for other purposes.
The Minister's predecessor, and the officials of the Department, are aware that I was interested in a case where the Land Commission had acquired 900 acres in my constituency some of which was on a steep mountain. However, a large tract of this land was flat and had a river flowing through it. I expressed the view that this land could be reclaimed and, because certain people were interested in purchasing it, I thought it would be a good experiment to divide it. I am aware that some of those interested who are in the land reclamation business could have developed a big portion of this land.
When marginal land is being acquired by the Forestry Division the Department of Lands should seek the advice of the qualified officials of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries as to whether this land has a potential for productive purposes.
(Cavan): It is so sought.
Such land need not be good cultivating land. If it is suitable for grazing purposes, it should not be acquired by the Forestry Division. We must weigh the net advantage to the State and to the owner of the land in the acquisition of land by the Forestry Division. If land can be used for grazing purposes, for sheep or cattle, it should not be acquired. I realise there are many difficulties in getting the maximum production from every Irish acre. Some farms are small and in other cases the owners are old or have emigrated while a number of farmers may not have the wherewithal to develop the land properly.
In my view the people who should be considered for the redistribution of land are the small farmers who are young and the young qualified men who have made up their minds to follow farming as a career. Many people decide to be farmers but not enough of them qualify themselves for that work. A young man who has attended a technical school or who in the future will attend a community school where classes are available and who does a three-year course in subjects related to agriculture should be considered.
Deputy O'Sullivan made a point which is important. At the moment land prices are very high. No small farmer, no matter how good he is, or any young man who has equipped himself educationally through the courses available can purchase land under these schemes. Land has become a blue chip investment. As one of the Deputies pointed out last night, people with money can borrow more money to buy land, thereby reducing their income tax. They can hold the land for five years and, as things are at the moment, they can be sure that their investment will have doubled in that time. A group can buy land. This is very bad when the group is composed of non-nationals. When they are nationals but not farmers it is also undesirable. A group can buy holdings and be sure of doubling their investment within five years even though they do not use the land. A time must be reached when land prices have reached their maximum value, but I do not know when that will be.
Some assistance must be given to young farmers. The acquisition by the Land Commission of small holdings which come up for sale may not be the proper way of dealing with the situation. Is it possible to subsidise loans to small farmers? Some years ago Bord Fáilte had a scheme for paying the interest on money borrowed by a person proposing to build a hotel, if such person had the necessary knowledge and experience and if the building he proposed to erect and the plans he produced to Bord Fáilte satisfied their requirements. Could this be an answer to the problem? If a farm, big or small, comes on the market and if a person belonging to either of the two classes I have mentioned wants it, could a similar scheme apply to him? I am speaking about the good, small farmer who wants to improve his holding or the qualified young farmer who is a farmer by qualification and vocation. I do not think that the wealthy people, and even the Land Commission in some cases, should compete against such people. The Land Commission should be in a position to say that they would pay the interest on the loan.
The Land Commission have been operating another scheme for a few years. They are encouraging people to go ahead and earmark their farms and that they will "chip in" on that arrangement. I understand that the system is not working very well. From what the Minister has said, that appears to be the position.
Each year when this debate is held in the House there is a discussion as to whether the Land Commission are necessary or whether they are doing the job of the 1970s, and whether the Land Commission should be added to or taken from. These are questions agitating the minds of many people. All over the country there have been discussions at meetings as to whether the Land Commission should have representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is dealing with the EEC, and from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Agricultural Credit Corporation.
The Minister must answer the questions which arise. Will he propose to us something that will deal effectively, either by change or addition, with the new situation created by the Common Market? It is not enough in the middle of the 1970s for the Minister to make the opening statement he did. I will not be satisfied unless the Minister's winding-up speech outlines a policy or proposals for a policy, or shows thinking that will bring us into line with what is available in the EEC. I am not satisfied that the House or the country are getting sufficient information. The Minister has his advisers, both on forestry and land matters. He has the advice of several very useful bodies.
The report of Macra na Feirme, issued a few days ago, is an excellent one. The Minister might indicate whether he is going to adopt some of its proposals. He might give us his thinking on this report. The same would apply to other expert opinions which have been given to him. The type of speech which the Minister has made and the speeches which have been made in this House over the past ten years on the Land Commission are not very different in format and pattern. The Minister has had three months in which to grapple with the problems. He might give us more information. He might seek more assistance from the House.
I do not want to say much about forestry land. I would agree with Deputy Lemass that the Forestry Division have done excellent work in many counties and especially in some tourist areas. Some of the forest parks are available to tourists. More importantly they are available to our own people coming out from the towns and cities at weekends. There are forest parks in Donegal, Roscommon, Gougane Barra and Glengarriff. There are forestry plantations in Wicklow. All of these are a credit to the Forestry Division and a credit to the tradesmen. It could not have been just ordinary forest workers who erected the fine picnic tables and the seats. They are artistically designed and well laid out. The waste paper containers are artistic and were certainly not imported from Hong Kong. They were made from the materials of the forest. I compliment the Forestry Division on these things. I know this work will be continued and I hope the Minister will provide money in abundance for it.
While I did say that marginal land should be looked at twice before being acquired for forestry, I still maintain that development of forestry is one of our best investments from an economic point of view and from a climatic point of view. I do not know whether the Minister has ever read The Rape of Ireland by Mackey. In that book this House, as it existed some years ago, and Members of this House came in for a good deal of criticism. It is a book which should be in every national, technical, secondary and community school. It contains something that would take me a long time to deal with. It deals with the climatic and the flooding aspect of forestry. One Deputy spoke about the absorption of water by the trees. A more important aspect is that when they have used up all the water they need and when there is ten times more water than that falling from our Irish heavens the forestry slows down and breaks the force of the torrent. The water that would have rushed down the Shannon, the Erne or any other river in a period of three hours takes three days and does a lot less damage.
I forgot to mention one point in relation to planning permission and the use of good agricultural land. I came across this very often when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government. Many local authorities, county councils especially, in their county development plans have clauses dealing with building in certain parts of their areas—in other words, there are areas of good agricultural land where the local authority, in their development plans and in their issuing of planning permission, provide that no building can take place on such land. Many local authorities provide in their development plans that mountains will be kept free of building development. To a certain extent, I agree with that. You just cannot have housing schemes climbing up the sides of mountains. From an aesthetic or scenic point of view it would be undesirable. However, it is more undesirable that large housing schemes should be creeping out into good agricultural land. Everyone in this House can see the city of Dublin crawling out into the best agricultural land in Europe. To be fair to County Dublin the local authority has this provision. This is something that should be looked at again. You must allow the owner of land to build a house for his own son, who may be the inheritor, in other words, to build on agricultural land. He fought for his three F's and if he wants to build a house he has the right. This right you cannot take away. I advocated that there should be increased grants for the person who will build on non-agricultural land. In this way he can exercise a choice but it would pay him not to use good agricultural land.
A discussion has taken place on the environment and the part the Minister's Department can play in ensuring that the environment will be protected and indeed improved. This is something into which other Departments enter. The section I was dealing with myself, the one connected with planning appeals, has a lot to do with it. One thing I always kept in mind when giving a decision was the environment and whether it would be injured by pollution, by effluent from a factory or effluent from silage operations— although it is rather difficult to deal with that because a lot of farm building is exempt from the provisions of the 1963 Planning Act. All Ministers for Local Government are very conscious of the building land problem. In Britain they set up a building land commission. I would suggest that a representative from the Department of Local Government should be connected in some way with the Land Commission and that there should be co-operation between the Department of Local Government and the Land Commission on these two matters: environment, which is very much the responsibility of both, and building land.
I have been considering the Department of Lands for the past five or six weeks. I do not expect that the Minister will say I have come up with all the answers to all the problems he has and all the problems he will have, and they are many. Even though it is out of line with my predecessor's thinking, I would say that the Department of Lands can be a most important Department in the future. They have a lot of work to do.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to the length of time it has taken the Land Commission over the years to divide land which they have taken over. I have seen this happen in my own constituency. Some two or three years ago an estate was taken over and the house on that land has now practically gone to rack and ruin. Had the Land Commission divided it within a reasonable time— and I would call two years a reasonable time—they would not now have to carry out repairs to the house or even rebuild it to accommodate a smallholder.
Not too far away from me lands were held for something like seven years. It covered the lifetime of two Dáils because I remember when I came here first meeting people who wanted this estate to be divided. It was practically eight years before it was divided. I suppose it is better late than never. The Minister said on television that he hoped to speed up the division of lands. I hope he has in mind the number of years I have suggested. I do not see any reason why it should take longer.
I suppose this is a hardy annual but I think many of the difficulties the Land Commission meet in acquiring land are due to the fact that people are not prepared or not anxious to take land bonds. I do not know the amount of land the commissioners are entitled to purchase for cash. I think the percentage is very low. If there is to be a good relationship between the Land Commission and the people who are selling land, it is vitally important that this matter should be looked into. A person may be forced to sell his land because of certain circumstances and if the Land Commission become interested in certain cases he must accept land bonds. He may be in financial straits and it is grossly unfair that he should have to accept bonds. The Minister should look at this and he should discuss the financial aspect with his colleague the Minister for Finance.
I also want to mention speculation in land purchase. I am convinced that speculators and business people must be stopped from purchasing land because they are inflating the price of land and making difficulties for the hard-working farmers who were prepared to work their land when times were bad. It is grossly unfair for business people and speculators to inflate the price of land.
When the Minister is replying perhaps he could tell me what will happen to the bog lands that have been developed by Bord na Móna. When they have harvested these lands and finished with these vast areas of bog land, is there any plan in the Land Commission whereby the cut-away bogs, which I would hope will have farming potential, will revert back to the farmers on the perimeter of the bogs to create viable farms for them and to give them a chance to earn a decent livelihood from the land? I do not know whether the Minister and his officials have any ideas on this point, or whether it has ever been raised in the House before.
I am expressing a personal opinion when I say with regard to forestry that it is regrettable that over the years certain lands which were capable of growing the best of grass, and in some cases grain crops, have been acquired by the Department of Lands for planting. From information I have got this has happened in the past. Is there any consultation in such cases between the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries?
I should like to refer to the retirement pension scheme for farmers which was introduced here and passed by this House some years ago. One and a half years after the scheme was introduced I put down a question to the Minister for Lands and from the reply I got at that stage the scheme seemed to have been a flop as regards the numbers who have availed of it. What was wrong with this scheme was that the incentives were not there. Also the scheme was not publicised sufficiently. I have not the figures available as to whether more farmers have availed of the scheme since, but I am very doubtful if the situation has improved. If the incentives were there those who wish to retire would avail of the scheme. The Minister needs to take a hard look at this scheme and increase substantially the incentives.
EEC recommendations are that farmers retiring at 55 years of age who are married should receive a pension of £450 a year; a single farmer of the same age would receive £300 a year. I do not believe that such a scheme would work here. That type of pension would not be an incentive to a farmer wishing to retire at 55 years of age. As I said, the Minister must take a long hard look at the scheme, because if this position is not improved we might as well not have the scheme in operation at all.
I noticed recently in the booklet Agriculture in the West of Ireland by Dr. John Scully that 55.7 per cent of farmers—this was within the 12 western counties—were over 50 years of age. Of these, 32 per cent had no heirs, 9.7 per cent had no direct heirs and 8.3 per cent had left due to migration or emigration. I refer to this because I have mentioned farmers retiring at 55 years of age. The figures for these 12 western counties relate to farmers of 50 years of age—five years younger than the retiring age mentioned.
The 12 western counties were Cavan, Clare, Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Longford, Mayo, Monaghan, Roscommon, Sligo and West Cork. In those areas 52.9 per cent of the lands were in one parcel. By "one parcel" I mean a compact farm, but 32.9 per cent of those were never registered. I mention these percentages to back up the argument I made with regard to retirement pensions at 55 years. The retirement pension scheme is important and must be treated with extreme urgency. If the incentives are not considerably increased the scheme will be a complete waste of time.
I should like to mention the case of small farmers who apply for allocations of land. I came across a case in my own constituency within the last eight years of a married man with a large family living on a small holding. There was land to be divided beside him known in the Land Commission records as the Rathcrogue estate. He did not get one acre of it. The reason he did not quality was because he was classified as an industrial worker. He worked for a man who did land reclamation. This is not justice.
When the Land Commission divided that land there were small pieces left which they gave to cottiers. I am not objecting to the cottiers getting the land but I object to the fact that a man who is a smallholder, and a hard worker, is deprived of land bordering his own ditch because he tried to earn more money to give his family a better standard of living. I appeal to the Minister for Lands to look at this situation and change it. I feel very strongly about this. I have cited only one case. I am sure there are other cases throughout the country about which other Deputies know in which the circumstances were similar and in which similar action was taken.
I appeal to the Minister to do everything in his power to change this system without delay. I emphasise that the retirement pensions scheme is an urgent matter. To put it in a nutshell, the whole policy of the Land Commission needs to be reviewed and tidied up.
I agree with many of the points made by the last speaker. Quite a few of the hill sheep farmers in County Wicklow would sympathise with what he has said. The Land Commission have been guilty on taking over land of knocking down houses in good repair. If the houses were not actually knocked down they were allowed to fall into decay. It has been argued that this is a method of ensuring that people leave the hills so that families will no longer be reared in houses in which generations before them were reared. This has been going on for quite a long time. People are being forced down towards the towns. Surely the object should be to avoid this kind of centralisation. Keeping people in these areas could actually lead to their being a safeguard should there be an outbreak of fire.
A great deal of damage and financial loss has resulted from forest fires. Some have been caused when hill fires went out of control. There is always the hazard of hill fires. They may be started inadvertently or they may be started maliciously. If they rage uncontrolled much damage can be done to forests. Firescreens have been mentioned. A tract of land bordering on a forest could be levelled to prevent the fire spreading and setting other belts of trees alight. I have heard of sheep being lost in these fires. The farmers tell me that these losses are due to the fact that fencing is not properly maintained. The Minister in his opening statement mentioned a particular sub-head and included in that subhead is money for the preparation of the ground and fencing. Are these the fences around the forest? Some of the fencing leaves a great deal to be desired. Those who know about timber say the material used is of very poor quality.
Many of the problems with which the Minister has to deal are problems well known in my constituency. We have the problem of commonage, marginal land, too much land being held for too long by the Land Commission and lack of planning. These are some of the problems. As far as commonage is concerned, land has become so precious now that everything must be done to ensure that every acre is properly utilised from now on. Commonage will have to be divided to ensure that every acre is utilised to the full. The 1939 Act deals with commonage. I wonder should more attention be given to it. Should it be highlighted more? I add my voice to those of previous speakers who stressed the need for the proper utilisation of this land.
Marginal land will always be a contentious matter. There are those who would claim that they could utilise it better than others utilise it. A balance must be maintained between sheep farming and afforestation. In a pilot scheme in Wicklow we had a farmer with a cow and a calf per acre at 1,200 feet. Contrast this with afforestation. We must now decide whether this type of land would be a more economic proposition utilised for agriculture rather than for afforestation. There can be no hard and fast rule because a great many factors are involved. Climate is involved. Where forests have been cut could the land be now reclaimed and returned to the people? I believe it could. Up to 31st March, 1972, a total of 74,795¼ acres were acquired for afforestation. Of this 58,364 acres were planted covering 24 State forests.
There is a fair share of land suitable for forestry and those involved in forestry would like to see more afforestation. There is the difficulty that sheep farmers want less afforestation claiming that good land is being planted. We shall always have this difficulty. No hard and fast rule can be applied; most cases will have to be taken on their merits and after negotiation a settlement could be reached.
According to figures I obtained last July, I find that of the 1,701 acres in possession of the Land Commission in County Wicklow, 185 acres have been held since 1965—although that is not strictly accurate. In 1967 a further 75 acres were acquired; in 1968, 293 acres; in 1970, 604 acres; in 1971, 173 acres and in 1972, 184 acres. Some of these figures are not entirely accurate because of the total amount 196 acres have been allotted or partly allotted, it is stated. Proceedings are at present in progress for the compulsory acquisition or voluntary purchase of a further 852 acres. This must be considered in the light of land being utilised to full advantage. If the Minister and the Land Commission can envisage a speedy division of this land, much of which has been held for too long, this would be welcomed by many local farmers.
Afforestation is not only an important industry but also has educational and recreational aspects. It is great that people who do not live in a rural environment can have conducted tours through forest parks at week-ends and other occasions in season. Here, again, we must look for a compromise because while hills, valleys and forests are attractive, damage may be caused by undesirables and the cost tends to be levied on the people of the county. Proper education is required so that people will respect our heritage when they learn about it and appreciate it. I should like to pay tribute to the group who turned out the brochures last year especially that dealing with Avondale which was a very attractive production which I have heard praised in many parts of Wicklow and Dublin. In dealing with forest parks and national parks, one can see difficulties not only in regard to the results of damage but also in regard to planning. Numerous decisions have been made refusing planning permission on scenic grounds and these cause difficulty. The son of parents long established in the county wishes to build and marry but finds because the area is listed as scenic or has special amenities permission is not forthcoming.
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy. I appreciate the point he is making but matters appertaining to planning are the responsibility of another Minister.
I appreciate that but I was hoping to produce some sort of answer. I accept that planning matters are not the Minister's responsibility, but in the overall picture of land, afforestation and farming becoming viable at different heights above sea level, with modern machinery, reclaiming land, consideration of proper utilisation of land and people being encouraged to stay on the land, housing becomes part of the picture.
It would be more appropriate on another Estimate.
Thank you. Just to finish the point, perhaps some compromise could be found whereby planning permission could be obtained more readily. It would make life much easier for the people involved.
In concluding I would just reiterate that the problem of commonage is, I find, important. So is marginal land and afforestation. Should more land be planted? Should land which has been used for afforestation be returned after afforestation for agricultural purposes?
I think Deputy Murphy was following a trend which is very much to the fore since the change of Government.
I was around befor that, thank you.
That is that a broader approach should be taken on the discussion of Estimates particularly when one Estimate can have a very strong bearing on another. One of the main criticisms I used offer in the House down through the years was that the Ministers in introducing Estimates do so as if there was no other Department in the State but their own. It is difficult to discuss a particular Estimate without, on occasion, referring to particulars which the Ceann Comhairle would rightly say were relevant to another Estimate.
Surely the Department under discussion, the Department of Lands, is a very close relative if not a full-blooded brother to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Consequently, when discussing this Estimate it is extremely difficult for any Deputy to address himself to it without referring to agricultural matters. I am particularly pleased to note that the Minister for Lands in his public statements made since he was appointed indicated that he is not alone thinking in terms of his own Department but that he is also thinking in terms of other Departments with particular reference to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.
It is true to say that possibly the only exception in the past Government where that vindicated itself to any small degree was in the case of the former Minister, Deputy Seán Flanagan.
That is not in the present Minister's opening speech.
The Parliamentary Secretary without interruption, please.
Land and the activities of the Department of Lands are now more important than ever because land is now like gold. It is difficult to get and hard to acquire and unless a person has a very substantial amount of money available to acquire land he can forget it. The Land Commission's role is all the more important in so far as getting land for supplementing uneconomic holdings and, naturally, the Land Commission must be exceptionally careful and diligent to ensure that any lands acquired are allotted to those entitled to them and that none is given away to people who are not qualified.
The alternative for a small farmer now to try to acquire land is exceptionally difficult. Even if land is for sale in his locality, a farmer will find it almost impossible to pay the 13½ per cent which is the buying price of money from the Agricultural Credit Corporation. Consequently, very few uneconomic holders who have not the money set aside can acquire land through the Agricultural Credit Corporation. I am very pleased that we have this closer co-operation between the Department of Lands and the Department of Agriculture.
I believe the number of uneconomic holdings in this country is high. A substantial percentage, one might say up to 50 per cent, of holdings in the country can be deemed to be uneconomic if we are to determine an uneconomic holding as one with an acreage of less than 40 to 45 acres of good land or its equivalent. We have thousands of farms in this country with an acreage of less than 40 to 45 acres of good land or its equivalent. The task facing the Land Commission or facing any State agency to make viable economic holdings of all the uneconomic ones is impossible. One would have to perform a miracle to do that and miracles just do not occur. The other alternative which the EEC have in mind is not so commendable to some. That is the weeding out of holdings, depressing the numbers, taking them over and dividing them between the people remaining.
That is not adopted policy.
It is not adopted policy but it is suggested policy.
More important is the aid to less viable farms contained in the directive issued on 1st October.
We cannot have debate by cross-question. The Deputy has already made his contribution and should allow another to make his.
With all due respect to Deputy Cunningham—we came here on the same day—I believe he is here long enough and on the Government's side long enough to have made these suggestions and have them implemented. Unfortunately, they were not produced in time because the people outside decided on what the Deputy would regard as a fatal day in February last.
All I have asked for is that the Parliamentary Secretary tell me about the EEC directive of 1st October concerning less favourable farm areas and less viable farms.
The task facing any commission or State agency to make viable holdings of all the uneconomic holdings in this country is enormous. The number of allottees last year was 1,850, and I understand from the figures supplied that 34,800 were allotted. I still hold to the view which I put forward down through the years that we must think in terms of part-time farming if we are to keep our people on the land.
We cannot perform miracles. We cannot make the land of uneconomic farms profitable. I am a great believer in trying to develop a system of part-time farming where a farmer will earn a certain amount of money from his farm and engage also in some kind of industrial work in his immediate locality. This is happening in some areas. It is happening to a small extent with a processing factory in Skibbereen. There are a number of part-time farmers working in that factory and working on their farms, thereby providing themselves with a reasonably good standard of living.
There is a point which I wish to develop, but I do not wish to be cross-examined on it because I am not in a position to answer all the arguments. What about the regional fund of the EEC which we have heard about? Will it do the job?
Not the 4 per cent.
I do not know the answer. I am merely making a suggestion. Will we get the benefits which were anticipated from the EEC Fund? Will industries be established along our coasts? Should we use it to help the areas which are not well-favoured, such as the western counties? I remember when Mr. Ó Moráin, then Deputy Ó Moráin, the former Minister for Lands, brought in his Bill about pensions for farmers with a view to encouraging them to hand over their farms to the Land Commission. This scheme was brought into effect. It was held that even if it would not solve all our problems at least it would solve some of them, and that as a result of this pension scheme mooted by the then Minister for Lands elderly farmers would flock to the Land Commission handing over their farms.
It was quiet apparent to many people at the time, and it is now clear to anybody who has a knowledge of rural Ireland, that such would not be the case, that this would not happen and that the kind of scheme visualised under the EEC regulations is "out". The number of holdings which would be affected would be negligible and would not merit attention. We all know what happens in rural Ireland. If a farmer and his wife have no heirs there are nephews and nieces and close relatives who are anxious to get the holding, and they feel entitled to it. The person handing over the farm likes to give it to a member of his own family. The same applies in the case of single farmers.
A report received much publicity in the last few weeks. It was from Macra na Feirme. There have been several surveys which show the position so far as the farming communities are concerned. There are many people in the farming community who are unmarried mainly because of the uneconomic conditions which prevailed in the not too distant past when people had to emigrate. Fortunately, that is changing. In assessing the availability of land for allotment we must take into account what is traditional here, and that is that if a farmer has no direct heir to his farm he is most likely to give it to a close relative. These farms do not come on the public market. They are not available to the Land Commission. I am sure that the Minister is fully conversant with the position and will understand that this way of solving our problems by acquiring farms from bachelor farmers and others will not work. Farmers can determine where their farms will go and, in my opinion, they are entitled to do so.
That brings me back to what I was saying before I discussed the farmers' pension scheme which was announced by a former Minister for Lands and which is now part of EEC policy. We must accept that land is in short supply. I suggest part-time farming as a possible solution. Even Deputy Wyse, as a city man, can appreciate that if a man is not able to make a living on a small farm but can get work nearby he can keep his wife and family and his farm. Such a man can supplement his income from his farm. It could be said that his position is preferable to that of a city worker because he has the income from his farm as well as the income from his industrial job. There is another factor which must be taken into account in dealing with such a position. It is all right to talk of a farmer getting a job which will supplement his income but in some cases such a man may require only a few days' work per week. On the other days he would be busy on his farm.
It is difficult for a Government to devise a scheme to assist such industrial activities and in the early stages such concerns may not be able to stand on their own feet or may not be economic propositions. I think we could subsidise them if we thought at some time that that kind of industrial activity, allocated to a particular district, would be able to stand on its own feet eventually and as well as that we would be working towards the EEC and trying to find out what we are going to get. We were promised a lot. I assume that some of the promises to establish such industry will be realised.
I am taking into account as well that it would remove what I think is an unpleasant necessity at present: the payment of money without any return, that is unemployment assistance to such farmers. I firmly believe that it would be much better for any Government to try to get people working rather than paying out money for nothing. I think it is unwise. I agree that it is absolutely essential as a temporary measure. But I do not think the EEC will allow this position to continue. We must find some replacement. It is not a system to last forever. I do not think the people would want it to last, even the very people who are benefiting from it. However, it is necessary while the present position obtains, where there is no work in isolated areas where land productivity is exceptionally low. It is only farmers with small valuations who qualify for such payments. If this money, which has to be found from the pockets of the public, could be channelled in some way to establish soundly based industrial projects it would uplift us all. People would not have to be demoralised by signing on in barracks and so on.
This is something we must get rid of. It is all right to help out of public funds people who are physically or mentally handicapped; but we have got only 2.9 million people in the country and our aim should be to provide work for all our able-bodied people, either part-time or full-time. When I say part-time I am referring to people who are self-employed on a part-time basis. Let us supplement that where necessary; and if a man has not got six days' work he might be able to work four, five or six hours a day three or four days a week. Let us move as fast as we can from the position where we have to pay money to people who are capable of and anxious to work.
The Department of Lands and the Minister could help in this direction by accepting that their job of creating economic holdings is difficult, that the possibilities are limited and that it is unlikely to be achieved because, irrespective of EEC policy and reducing the number of farmers in the country, I do not think the Irish farmer is likely to leave. The tradition is to try to hold on to your holding and to pass it along to a member of your family. We must accept that that is likely to continue.
Deputy Governey mentioned a case of a small farmer in his constituency who did not get a field adjoining his holding because he was engaged in industrial employment. Of course that is the law at present. I understood from Deputy Governey's remarks that the farm of the man in question was not up to a standard to give him a reasonable income and that he was forced to get employment to supplement his income from the farm. The Land Commission and the Minister should have another look at this position. By all means if there are people engaged as full-time farmers in the locality with holdings not deemed to be economic I agree that they are entitled to first preference but at the same time I do not accept that a small farmer who is engaged in some industrial employment should be cut adrift altogether.
On this question of the allotment of land I should like to emphasise again the position of rural workers. I understand a rural worker can get up to five acres of land if he resides within half a mile of a holding which is being divided. That is in theory. In practice it seldom or never happens. A man living in a cottage with a wife and family, working for the county council or for some other employer, should get his five acres at least. It would allow him to keep a cow and calf, to grow vegetables and so on. The greatest asset a rural worker can have is a small holding. If he had five acres it would be a great advantage to him and to his family. I am sure the Minister, Deputy Fitzpatrick, will apply himself to this question and I hope that the rural worker will be considered to a greater extent than he has been up to now.
In the division of land local officers of the Land Commission should get more autonomy. At present they have little or none. The senior officer in the Land Commission office, by virtue of the position he holds and the channels through which he has to go to get that position and his qualifications, is a man of integrity. His assistant inspectors are likewise. No one is better able to assess the qualifications of an applicant than the man on the spot who can talk with him, meet him, and assess his qualities. He should have a greater say than he has at present in determining who will get the land.
As I understand the procedure, he has to submit all this in writing to the Commissioners in Dublin. No matter how good you are at putting things on paper about an applicant for a farm which is to be divided, I do not think you can give anything like a true picture of the position which the man on the spot could give. People get different impressions of other people. Some people do not like reflecting on a person's character on paper. For a variety of reasons this position should be reviewed and consideration should be given to whether it is desirable to give greater autonomy to the local inspectors in determining successful applicants.
Deputy Governey referred to the question of land bonds. People were never happy with land bonds. Nobody knows that better than the Minister by virtue of his profession. It is difficult for the Land Commission to ask a landowner to sell his land. Most people would be just as happy to sell their land to the Land Commission if the price is favourable, but land bonds are not acceptable. The only alternative is a cash payment. I believe the Land Commission would find it much easier to buy land if they paid cash. If you say to a person that the Land Commission will buy his lands he will say: "These fellows do not pay you at all only with some old bonds and you do not know how they will go." That is the view of the average countryman. Apparently there is only one way these bonds can go and that is down, down, down. People can see that and, therefore, to ask them to sell their land for bonds is rather cheeky.
Deputy C. Murphy referred to commonage. With the increasing value of land from month to month an effort should be made, as suggested by Deputy Murphy, to publicise this scheme whereby commonages can be divided with the consent of the owners. Some land which is not too bad gets very little attention because it is jointly owned and what is everybody's business is nobody's business. Where it is owned by four people it could be divided into four parts. I know this would be difficult but some of the Land Commission inspectors are very tactful men and I have no doubt that they could act as a go-between or mediator between the owners. Down in West Cork in one case there were only two owners so perhaps it was not such a big job to divide it. With the present value of land this matter should be considered.
I should like to refer publicly to the economic pressures of the past years with the result that people had to leave the country and go to Britain mainly. Some farmers left uneconomic holdings with a view to getting together some capital and returning home to develop their farms. The number may not be very great but there were people who could not find employment at home and who did not care to go to the exchange. They felt they needed some capital and when it was not obtainable in Ireland they moved abroad to earn it.
If they are satisfied that these people left on very good grounds, to earn capital to develop their farms, the Land Commission should not step in and take over their holdings, at least without giving them advance notice. Some people suggest that since the person has gone to England and left his farm, it should be taken over by the Land Commission. I do not agree. The man should be asked is he returning or is he likely to return later on. I could pinpoint eight or nine such people I know personally who are in England mainly because they are anxious to get capital together to develop their farms when they return.
On the question of forestry, the position so far as the acquisition of land is concerned, and possibly so far as an increase in the number of employees is concerned, is not as bright as we would wish it to be. The Department of Lands will find it extremely difficult to buy land. People are not inclined to sell to the Land Commission, even land suitable for afforestation. The Department must pay a very high price if they want to purchase land. Having regard to the price of cattle and sheep, even mountain sheep, is it desirable, despite the fact that it is giving much needed employment, to take over land which is being utilised to a greater extent possibly than ever before in cattle and sheep rearing? These are valuable assets. I see great difficulty facing the Department in the purchase of any kind of land for forestry purposes.
Taking into account the high prices for land prevailing today, any land deemed to be fit for agricultural development should not be acquired by the Forestry Division. Where it is included in a parcel of rougher land, the fertile part deemed suitable for agricultural purposes should not be handed over to the Land Commission for disposal at their discretion. The Forestry Division have contributed a great deal over the years to the provision of employment. While they have achieved some success, I can see the Minister's difficulty so far as his Department's anxiety to acquire more land for afforestation is concerned.
I am pleased to note that in future, subject to the Ceann Comhairle's ruling we will not be dealing with the Estimate for Lands in isolation. The Estimates for Lands and Agriculture are closely connected. One cannot be discussed without the other. A departmental committee or liaison officer would be required to co-ordinate the activities of the different Departments whose work and functions are bound to overlap. The Government are doing that and the public are aware that it is being done. When we discuss a particular Department we naturally refer to matters which would be more appropriate to another Department. I am very pleased that this broad view is being taken. Not only are the Government supposed to be acting with collective responsibility, but they are seen to be doing so. Even though a Minister is in charge of one Department that does not mean he is not interested in what is happening in other Departments. That is as it should be.
I should like to congratulate Deputy Fitzpatrick on his appointment as Minister. This Ministry has been overshadowed in the past. With our entrance into Europe it will gain the prominence that is its due. Unfortunately we are dealing with a limited asset, a static asset, and to meet the demands of all those in need of land we would need another Ireland; we would need the Hy Brasil of Irish mythology. If we could acquire that extra land many of our problems would be resolved. We must deal with the realities of the situation. I and other Members of this House have been innundated with calls to make representations to the Minister. These calls come from men who are genuinely interested in extending their holdings which have been declared non-viable or uneconomic in the European context. With the welfare of their families at heart they are seeking an extension of their holdings to make them viable and economic. These people have a genuine demand for land, I might say an avariciousness for land which we, as professional people, find hard to understand. I know the Minister with all his resources and energy will resolve many of the outstanding problems.
The Vote for £5,500,000, even though it is an increase of £1,010,000 approximately on last year's Vote, is inadequate. I urge the Minister to look for at least £10,000,000 in next year's Estimate if he is to make any impression on the vast backlog of work.
There is an innovation this year. A sum of £1,000,000 has been allocated for cash purposes. This is very welcome but in the context of modern prices it is inadequate. The Minister should double or treble this amount next year to enable his Department to offer cash prices to people who offer their land for sale. Land bonds have been mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary. They are causing a lot of annoyance and confusion to those who would otherwise offer land to the Land Commission. If a system could be evolved whereby the Land Commission offered 50 per cent cash and the rest in land bonds, many farmers would be willing to offer their land to the commission. Farms in my constituency were sold privately to avoid the Land Commission acquiring them. If the Minister could devote some of his time to solving this problem it would go a long way towards solving many problems associated with land division.
From the statistics provided by the Minister we are told that there are 76,000 acres for acquisition on the books in his Department. Of that, 35,000 were allocated last year and there was an intake of 21,000 acres. There is an imbalance of 31,000 acres and it is here the kernel of the problem lies.
I would appeal to the Minister to do something about the staffing of the Land Commission. With adequate staff we could solve many of our problems. There are four Commissioners for the Twenty-Six Counties. Their task is impossible. As the Minister said, one could not expect four Commissioners to deal with 76,000 acres of land. Three or four Commissioners should be appointed for each province. The offices at local level are understaffed. The staff cannot cope with the volume of work. While staffing remains inadequate at local level, there will be no improvement in the distribution of land. As a first priority, the Minister should increase the staff at local level and also the number of Commissioners.
With regard to land being held too long in the hands of the Land Commission, that is not fair to prospective allottees. They live in hope of getting an extension or a new holding; waiting for a new holding they lose interest in their own holding. If they knew early on that they would not get a new holding or an increase in their existing holding they would make other plans. I have known holdings in South Tipperary in the hands of the Land Commission for 20 years. The land is let in conacre and those who use it for conacre do not bother to fertilise it. The land is spun out. Some have used it as conacre for so long that they almost have a squatter's right to the land. A great deal of local agitation can be caused when someone like that fails to get a portion of the land when it is divided eventually. The greatest return in the short term from the economic point of view can be got from an early division of land.
I am told that a single man with a small holding is at the bottom of the list. This is unfortunate. He will remain unmarried because his holding is too small and his holding will not be increased because he is single. It is a vicious circle. That is why so many of our farming community remain perforce unmarried. There are single and married landless men. If they have other jobs I suppose their claim to land cannot be sustained, but I know landless men who are farmers in every sense of the word except in the ownership of land. They take conacre and they utilise it to its full potential. If the Minister could put these a little higher on the list he would be doing a good day's work for rural Ireland, particularly from the social point of view.
We are glad that many of our fears about entry into Europe have not been realised. It is heartening to note that only 1,368 acres have been given to non-nationals. That was a matter raised by those who objected to our entry into the EEC. They thought the country would be overrun by non-nationals. I am glad to note too that the EEC directives protect our lands quite adequately and there has been no large-scale buying by non-nationals.
Could the Minister extend the credit scheme under sub-head G to areas other than designated areas? What kind of money would be involved? Would it be beyond the capacity of this Vote to extend this scheme to other areas? Perhaps he would let us know when he comes to reply.
The houses built by the Land Commission are too standardised. Surely there could be a greater variety. It should not be beyond the capacity of our architects to design a greater variety of more attractive houses.
Macra na Feirme has come up with a new scheme in relation to the leasing of land. I would urge the Minister to meet both Macra na Feirme and the IFA. Between them they should be able to draw up a programme acceptable to the farming community and to his Department for the leasing of land. I would urge greater consultation with these bodies because they were born on the land and they are equipped to advise the Minister in the best interests of all concerned.
I note the Vote for Forestry is greater than that for Lands. I hope that in future the Vote for Lands will be at least equal to that for Forestry because we can get the greatest return economically in the short term from money invested in land. Money invested in forestry is a long-term proposition. I am not against forestry. I just make the point that the greatest return in the short term is got from land. I hope the Minister will keep the slopes of the Galtees, the Comeragh and the Knockmealdown mountains in mind when he is distributing the money allocated for the acquisition of land for forestry. The Land Commission acquired 37,000 acres in 1971-72 and 36,000 acres last year. The figures compare favourably with those for land, but I suppose the comparison is not really a valid one since much of the land acquired for forestry is mountain land.
With regard to grants to farmers for planting trees, the scope of this scheme should be widened. We are, unfortunately, inclined to look at trees from a commercial rather than a decorative point of view. Our towns could be made much more attractive if trees were planted in proximity to them. Years ago I applied to the local office for trees in order to plant a shelter belt around the school but I got no help. I suggest that where schools, public bodies or local councils want trees they should get them free and that all the help and expertise of the Minister's Department should be made available to them. In the long run Ireland would be much more beautiful. The Minister could consult Bord Fáilte, the Tidy Towns, development associations and chambers of commerce on this matter. The outlay would be minimal in the over-all Vote for his Department. It would help people to become more aware of the beauty of trees.
Much good work is being done by the games sanctuaries. I have in mind one recenty opened at Dundrum Forest, County Tipperary. Sunday after Sunday people from Tipperary town and surrounding areas flock there and enjoy this splendid recreational amenity. Nowadays people are motorised to a greater extent and are anxious to leave the towns and go into the country. I congratulate the Forestry Division for making these facilities available. I suggest that in each such case a small picnic area be provided taking due account of fire hazards. Much work in this connection has been done at the Vee, the Galtees and other areas of south Tipperary and I commend the Department for it.
I should like, finally, to refer to that great programme on RTE, Amuigh faoin Spéir, which is beloved by school-children and adults alike. I congratulate the team responsible for their good work in inculcating a love of the Irish countryside and of wildlife. They are doing a fine job and I should like to see many programmes of this type being broadcast. I wish the Minister every success in his office. He will need it because the demands on him will be such that he will need all the resourcefulness and all the boundless energy he undoubtedly has.
Cavan): This discussion on the Estimates for my Department which includes the Forestry Division has been very pleasant and helpful. It extended over a quite lengthy period. I should first like to thank the many Deputies who congratulated me and wished me a fruitful period of office. I noticed that was more frequent before the recess and this, I think and hope goes to show that the Government and the Ministers have now settled down to work and are taken as being firmly in office and are no longer newcomers.
Seldom, if ever, has a Minister for Lands entered on his term of office at a more challenging time. For many years the Department and the Land Commission carried on their work in a humdrum way, due in no way to lack of energy on the part of the Minister or his officials but just because it was a matter of acquiring estates, large or small, and dividing them between smallholders in an effort to bring small holdings up to what was considered from time to time to be a viable economic holding. In past years there was no great rush or demand for land and it was considered as something of a tribute to a young man if he decided to stay on the land. The parents were delighted to boast that their son had decided to continue on the farm. All that has changed because with our advent into Europe farming has become a more profitable occupation. The farmer's life has become easier than of old; he gets a better return from his work, and I hope the time has arrived when the lot of the farmer's wife has improved and become more tolerable and, indeed, will compare favourably with the way of life of any of her urban or metropolitan sisters.
I said I am entering my term of office at a very challenging time. That is so because most people in agriculture at present want to stay in it. People with small or medium-size farms want more land. People who have been out of agriculture for a long time or who have never been in it want to buy land. These people are sometimes described—and, indeed, have been so described in this debate— as speculators. As Minister for Lands, I have responsibility for the Land Commission and for the Forestry Division of the Department.
It is apparent from the debate that there is competition, to put it at its mildest, between the agricultural community and the Forestry Division for what used to be known as marginal or bad land. In the conditions in which we live today no one will concede that there is such a thing as bad land.
Before I became Minister I found myself making representations on numerous occasions to the Forestry Division to release land they had acquired to neighbouring farmers who wanted to farm it. Since I became Minister I have also received very many such representations. This means that as far as the agricultural community is concerned there is no such thing as bad land at the moment.
All of these things I have mentioned add up to a challenge. The question of the division of commonages has become more urgent than it was before. These things present the challenge to the Minister for Lands, the Land Commission and the officers of the Department of Lands. It follows that if the Department of Lands and the Land Commission are to be a success, if they are to serve the country and serve the people they must in existing conditions assume what I would call a new look.
It is common case to say that no country in the EEC is as dependent as Ireland on agriculture which is the same as saying that no country in the EEC is as dependent as Ireland on land. Hence the perfection of our land structure, its ownership, distribution and use are cardinal features of our economy. Land acquisition is a contentious business, often protracted, that moves along the line not of least resistance but of most resistance. It is well then to tranquillise it and seek to import a sense of equanimity into it.
I have many people and organisations telling me to introduce a good scheme for the encouragement of the elderly to leave farming so that the land released can go into the hands of active developing farmers. I do not mind being told that but I really do not have to be told it.
In so far as the scheme under Directive 160 is concerned, I want a winner. I want a winner for those adjudged suitable to stay on as developing farmers and for those who elect to move out of farming. It is my personal ambition to ensure that the scheme produced under the EEC Directive 160 will not fail to promote what is intended to be achieved under the fraternal Directive 159 on farm modernisation, That, I am satisfied, will be the genesis of "decongestion" in real terms.
A system of leasing for a twelve-year period is part of the envisaged arrangements and, indeed, it figures largely in the report which I had the honour to receive this week from Macra na Feirme on farm inheritance. Just now I cannot say how that will take here because for so long we have been accustomed to personal proprietorship. Of course, with the high price land is fetching in the direct purchase market and with the soaring interest rates for borrowed capital, leasing may become acceptable.
In regard to the scheme to encourage the elderly to leave agriculture because they are unhappy there or because they are not making an adequate return from the land, I am very pleased to say that this scheme is at a very advanced stage of preparation. It is practically finalised. I have had the pleasure and the opportunity of meeting the representatives of the IFA in relation to it. I hope before very long to have an opportunity of discussing it with other farming interests.
The basic scheme under the directive provides for a minimum scheme of an annuity of £420 to a married farmer who leaves agriculture, sells his farm to a developing farmer or to the Land Commission, and of £280 to a single farmer who does likewise. Of course, it is necessary that the farmer be within a certain age group and there are certain other qualifications. I am happy to be able to tell the House that the scheme which I hope to be in a position to offer to the farmers of this country will be much more generous than the minimum provided by the EEC directive. I am happy that I am able to say that and I am confident that the scheme which I propose under Directive 160 will be adequately attractive to encourage the elderly farmers with no successors to go out of agriculture and spend the rest of their lives in comfort in so far as financial matters are concerned and to make that land available for young energetic men who are anxious to develop within the EEC.
As I see it, the role of the Land Commission within the Department of Lands in the foreseeable future will be a two-fold one. It will continue to invoke the compulsory powers conferred on it by the Land Acts to ensure that people who have been described as land speculators, whether they are foreign or native, do not acquire land which is required for the relief of congestion or for the development programme. These compulsory powers may also have to be used in order to acquire derelict or semi-derelict lands which are not being properly worked or in anything like full production.
That does not mean that the people about whom Deputy O'Sullivan spoke who go abroad for a short time to earn capital to build up their farms will be set upon. That would be unreasonable. Any man who finds himself in that position and who genuinely intends returning to Ireland and continuing in agriculture should be given an opportunity of coming back, taking up residence and going into agriculture. That is the reasonable approach and it is the approach I hope to be able to influence the Land Commission to take.
It is clear that under the EEC directive about which I have been speaking, and under the scheme I shall bring into operation when it has been cleared by the Commission, the Land Commission will have more pleasant tasks to perform. Working a compulsory operation is never pleasant but the compulsory powers of the Land Commission in the past and at the moment were and are necessary. As I see it, it will be the task of the Land Commission to work in close harmony and co-operation with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in regard to implementation of Directives 159 and 160. It will be the duty of the Land Commission to acquire on a voluntary basis as far as possible and for cash—this is very important—sufficient land to implement Directive 159. By this I mean sufficient land to enable farmers who wish to develop to do so. There will be the closest co-operation between the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and my Department in regard to this matter. It is a joint operation.
It might be appropriate at this time to mention the question of payment for land. We all know land bonds are not popular, although it may be true that at one time they were popular. When I served my time as a solicitor I remember holders of land bonds insured against the bonds being drawn for redemption because, strange as it may appear, they suffered a loss if they were paid at par for the land bonds. In those days a £100 bond stood at £103, £104 or £105 and for a small sum it was possible to insure against redemption of these bonds. Regrettably, we got away from that many years ago and it would probably be a very expensive business to insure against loss in holding bonds.
I should like to be able to say that all land acquired by the Land Commission would be paid for in cash. I cannot do that but I can say there is a positive move towards cash. For example, the Estimates for last year provided only £200,000 for payment in cash but this year's Estimates went to £1 million. I can only tell the House that as Minister for Lands I shall fight for as much cash for the purchase of land as the national purse can afford. Apart from that, the EEC directive and the scheme under it will mean more land will be purchased on a voluntary basis and for cash. That may improve the name of the Land Commission so far as the purchase of land for cash is concerned.
I should like to refer to the annuities which were charged to people who have been allotted land. The 1965 Land Act abolished what was known as the "half annuity", it abolished the contribution that was made towards payment of annuities by the Exchequer. Up to that time the Exchequer contributed 50 per cent of the annuities which were charged to allottees. I found in 1965 that that Act abolished this concession for the entire country with the exception of the congested areas. These were defined as Counties Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Mayo, Roscommon, Sligo, portion of County Clare and portion of West Cork.
Coming from one of the Ulster Counties I could not understand why, in 1965, Counties Longford, Cavan and Monaghan were excluded from this privilege. When the 1965 Bill was going through the Seanad I argued as forcibly as possible for the inclusion of these three counties because it was my opinion that they should have been given the same treatment as the congested districts which had been defined at the beginning of this century. However, I did not succeed in convincing the then Minister for Lands of the merit of what I was saying but sometime afterwards the three counties were included in the undeveloped areas for the purpose of grants for industry. I made another effort then by way of Parliamentary Question to persuade the then Minister for Lands to follow the example of the Minister for Industry and Commerce of the day by adding the three counties to the congested areas Schedule but, again, I was unsuccessful.
In opening the debate on this Estimate I announced that I proposed to amend the Second Schedule of the 1965 Land Act so as to include Monaghan, Cavan and Longford in the Schedule in order that they would enjoy the benefit of the State subsidy which applied to areas defined as congested districts. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Government have agreed to this being done and that I have now made an order providing that the three counties concerned be added to the Schedule. This is something that is long overdue, especially when one hears a demand in the House to the effect that the entire country should be treated as a congested area.
Many valuable contributions have been made during the course of this debate. In dealing with these contributions, either under the various headings or under the names of Deputies, I shall be afforded an opportunity of elaborating on some points that I wished to cover.
The then spokesman on Lands for the Opposition, Deputy Flanagan, as well as Deputies Finn, Brugha, Enright, McLaughlin, Taylor, Gallagher and Gibbons all dealt with the problem of speculators buying land at the expense of genuine farmers who were in need of more land. Some Deputies urged that I should take further legislative powers to deal with this problem, a problem that has existed for the past few years and which arose when people who acquired large sums of money and who were well advised as to the probable increase in the value of land decided to buy land as a speculation. The Land Commission have adequate powers to deal with this problem. They have power to acquire any land that is necessary for the relief of congestion. They can acquire land that has not been in production during a specified period before they make the order. The Land Commission have at their disposal the section 40 notice which, when served, defers a sale and ensures that the Land Commission are not faced with a fait accompli. It will be the policy of the Land Commission for as long as I am in office that large farms which come on the market and which are required for the relief of congestion will be noted by them, will be investigated fully and if found to be useful for the purpose of relieving congestion and bringing up the small farmer to a decent standard of living, will be acquired.
I should hate to think that people who had not got a farming background or who had such a background but had been away from agriculture for many years, would be allowed to acquire farms to the disadvantage of the genuine small farmer. I am not suggesting that the Land Commission should acquire every farm that comes on the market. Their approach must be reasonable. For example, apart from the EEC directive, if a small farm is being offered for sale and if an adjacent small farmer wishes to purchase it for the purpose of solving his own congestion problems, he should be allowed to purchase it even if the Land Commission have served a section 40 notice. This section 40 notice is a device that was included in the 1965 Land Act in order to preserve the status quo until such time as the Land Commission have an opportunity of vetting a farm and deciding whether it would be in the interests of the economy, and in the interest of the relief of congestion as well as in the interest of fair play and justice, to allow a farmer to purchase so that he might bring his own holding up to a viable standard, or whether it would be proper to acquire it and divide it between local congests. Each case would have to be dealt with on its merits. I have made clear already what my thoughts are on the acquisition of large tracts of land by non-agricultural people.
Down through the years there have been complaints regarding delays on the part of the Land Commission. These complaints were mentioned in this debate by Deputies Esmonde, Geoghegan, Finn, Power, Bermingham, Brugha, McLaughlin, Calleary, Enright, Gallagher, Malone, Crinion and others. Undoubtedly, there has been what appears to be delay in the Land Commission. The policy has been for some time past that land should not be held for longer than two years. I know, as Deputies know, that that target has not always been attained. On the other end of the scale, you hear some Deputies saying that land has been in hand for twenty years. I think Deputy Geoghegan mentioned such a case, and I would say it is unique, but I agree there is too much delay in the distribution of land. It is frustrating for a farmer who knows he is going to get land to be kept out of it for two, three, four or five years. That is too long, and I shall try to arrange and facilitate the early distribution of land, which sometimes is kept on hands pending more land in the same area being acquired so that a better scheme can be drawn up.
That is the usual excuse given for delay in the division of land.
(Cavan): A direction along those lines was given in the past, but from now on the policy will be that unless this other holding appears to be available very soon, the allocation of lands on hand should not be held up pending the coming into possession of the Land Commission of further land. While five years is not long in the life of a corporate body like the Land Commission or a county council, it is a fair bit in the life of a man. I sympathise with the Deputies who have representations made to them about these delays. I have made them myself and all I can say is that it would be my wish and hope that these delays would be cut out.
Hope springs eternal.
(Cavan): The Deputy was expecting quite a lot of spring over there when he was speaking some time ago.
There is nothing new in what the Minister is saying.
(Cavan): There might be only the difference that we shall do something about it.
I am sure the Minister has known of delays of up to seven and eight years, which I have quoted here this morning.
(Cavan): I fully appreciate there is too much delay. The next point made by many Deputies is that land should be paid for in cash. I have dealt with the desirability of paying for land in cash. The Land Commission is moving in that direction. The fact that we shall be dealing with this on a voluntary basis under Directive 160 should do a lot to ease the situation. Part of the problem presented by the increase in the value of land and the increased profit from agricultural activities has also been highlighted in this debate by the discussion on commonages. I may be wrong but I venture to suggest that no previous debate on the Department of Lands devoted so much time to commonages. That is because of the increased value of agricultural produce, particularly the increased value of livestock. I am glad to be able to say that since this debate commenced I availed of an opportunity to visit the west of Ireland, Galway and Mayo, and I had a look at the question of commonages myself. There are two types of commonage: there is the lowland commonage composed of ordinary agricultural land and there is the mountain commonage.
The difficulty about dealing with commonage or dividing it up is that you are dealing with people, with individuals. You are trying to get anything from, perhaps, four to 40 people to agree on the distribution. The Land Commission has done considerable work in the distribution of commonages but it has been largely where there has been agreement between the commoners. If you do not get agreement between all the commoners or all the farmers entitled to the grazing, you have a big problem on your hands. If I might just say so, any place where the owners of commonage agree and come to the Land Commission, they will get the fullest co-operation and speedy attention in dealing with their problem.
That was always the case.
(Cavan): Where there is disagreement between owners of commonage, there is a difficult problem. I believe that lowland commonage should be divided quickly. From what I have seen and what I have been told I think we would want to have a further study made of mountain commonage. It is not even possible to get the owners there always to agree on manuring or fertilising the mountain. Therefore, it will not be an easy job to get them to agree as to who will get this portion or who will get that portion, and if you do not get agreement the second stage of the operation could be worse than the first.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.