asked the Minister for Agriculture if he is aware that almost all farmers and in particular small farmers are dissatisfied with the lack of action by the Land Commission; and the plans, if any, the Government have to update the Land Commission to enable them to operate more effectively.
Ceisteanna—Questions Oral Answers. - Land Commission Operations.
27.
The answer to the first part of the question is no. Statistics of Land Commission activities over the past four years show that some 37,000 hectares were acquired for purposes of structural reform, while a total of 46,000 hectares was divided amongst upwards of 6,000 allottees. The area of lettable land awaiting allotment which stood at 32,000 hectares in 1977 has now been reduced to 24,000 hectares.
As to the second part of the question, I would refer the Deputy to the Government's proposals on future land policy which were published in a recent White Paper. As indicated therein, measures are being taken to update and streamline the administrative structure and procedures of the Land Commission.
Surely the Minister must be aware that the small farmers rely purely on the Land Commission to buy land and divide it out between them? Is the Minister aware that in recent years the amount of land purchased by the Land Commission has fallen? Would he make a statement on that matter?
The extent of the drop in land acquired by the Land Commission in recent years has been totally exaggerated. I do not wish to delay the House now in going into exact details and comparisons. The drop was not significant because the Land Commission were asked to concentrate their activities on reducing the acreage of land previously purchased but not allocated to deserving smallholders. It is quite clear from their success in recent times that this strategy has succeeded in allocating thousands of acres which had been lying idle or been let by the Land Commission. It was preferable to try to reduce this acreage substantially. More progress will be made on this in the future.
(Cavan-Monaghan): How many acres were allocated last year?
The total area for 1980, the figure at this stage is provisional, was 9,286 hectares.
(Cavan-Monaghan): That would be about 25,000 acres. Is the Minister aware that in recent years a normal year's allocation was 34,000 acres, and therefore the Minister's figure is a serious reduction? Are the Land Commission doing anything? They are not taking in any land and apparently their allocation has dropped from 34,000 acres to 25,000 acres. In view of the Minister's statement that the Land Commission have been concentrating on allocations of land already acquired, would he explain the position?
In 1975 an area of 11,121 hectares was acquired and last year the provisional figure was 7,122 hectares.
So they are not taking in land and they are not dividing the land they have.
Can we have a clear statement from the Minister on land acquisition? Throughout the country people consider that Land Commission acquisition operations have been closed down. The Minister has said the Land Commission are concentrating on dividing land. This is utter hogwash. Is it not the true situation that the Land Commission are not being given money for the acquisition of land, particularly in the last year?
I indicated in my earlier reply that in 1977, 34,000 hectares of land were available to the Land Commission for division but not yet divided, but by the end of last year that had been reduced to 24,000 hectares although in the meantime considerable acreages were acquired.
Can the Minister say why the Land Commission insist on taking land and holding on to it for a number of years? Number two, is it not true that in the past two years particularly, practically no land was acquired in some of the counties where formerly a lot of land had been acquired — I am thinking particularly of my constituency? Number three, is it not also true that the Land Commission appear to be phasing out the purchasing of land for division? Is it not true that the Minister's predecessor made a statement to that effect two years ago?
The Government obviously view with alarm a policy which would leave in Land Commission hands large areas of land for too long a period. It is a priority to ensure that delay will be cut to a minimum. However, there are circumstances in which the possible acquisition of additional land adjoining a holding already acquired might enable the Land Commission to carry out a much better rearrangement programme. It is only in such circumstances that there would be a delay in dividing a holding.
The Minister did not answer the third part of my supplementary — whether his predecessor had said they were phasing out division of land.
He said he was concentrating Land Commission activities on reducing the areas of land already in stock and not divided. This effort has been proceeding. He said that at the same time the Government were to introduce a new land policy. We have prepared a White Paper which is on the floor for discussion and we hope to be able to implement its proposals in the near future.
That is not my recollection of what he said.
There has been a 30 per cent reduction in land allocation and a 40 per cent reduction in land acquisition. Can the Minister say the percentage increase there has been in the cost of running the Land Commission?
One million pounds extra for salaries this year.
It is a separate question. Deputy FitzGerald will appreciate that between 1976 and the middle of 1979 land prices reached an astronomical level and if Land Commission activities had been extended to the purchase of land at the rate he and his party suggest I doubt if a number of the farmers who would have benefited by the acquisition of those lands would find themselves in a position to pay the annuities that would be required.
That is not the point. My point is that there has been a tremendous drop in Land Commission activities but costs have increased.
One million pounds extra for salaries and £10 extra for land acquisition.
28.
andMr. D'Arcy asked the Minister for Agriculture how the Land Commission are expected to reduce their expenditure on Post Office services by £109,000 from £291,000 in 1980 to £182,000 in 1981; and if this will mean any reduction in the level of services provided.
The reduced provision will not entail any reduction in services. The decrease arises solely from the fact that this year credit is being allowed to the Lands Vote for the amount by which payments in previous years exceeded the actual cost of providing the service.
Exactly how much did payments exceed the actual cost and in which years did the excesses occur?
The gross estimate for 1981 was £361,000 but because payments in previous years exceeded the actual cost of the service by £179,000 credit was allowed for the sum. I am not in a position to indicate exactly when the credit was allowed and for how long a period, but it is quite clear that the arrangements by which payments are made by the Department of Agriculture for services from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in relation to 1979 because of the postal strike would have meant that a figure very much in excess of what was in the Estimates was paid and this is responsible for the bulk of the refund.
Will the Minister give an assurance that the credit to which he has referred was not included among unexpended departmental balances against the Land Commission in the budget figures?
I have outlined the position. The figures are supplied annually by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.
I asked the Minister if he will give an assurance that the credits to which he referred were not double counted by being included also as unexpended balances credited to the Land Commission in the figures used to compute the amount of budget surplus or deficit?
We are not unused to the suspicious nature of Fine Gael in relation to proposals of this kind.
Would the Minister mind answering the question? My motives are my own concern, not his.
His reluctance to answer is enough to arouse the suspicions of anybody.
I have said that the estimate for 1979 was £179,000 greater than was actually necessary because of refunds or credits.
I asked the Minister about departmental balances. The Minister has not answered it.
I am not responsible for the Minister's answers.
On a point of order, it is now 3.30 and if this question is answered I will not be able to deal adequately with it. I request that Question Time end now.
I have called Question No. 29.