asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry the reason there was a shortfall of £600,300 in the actual expenditure on the acquisition of land as estimated in the Public Capital Programme 1980 for the forestry section of his Department; the acreage which it is proposed to acquire in 1981 with the estimated capital provision of £3.3 million; the proposed acreage which will be acquired as a result of this capital provision in each county; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Land Acquisition.
41.
The forestry land acquisition subhead (C.1) takes the form of a Grant-in-Aid. In June 1980, when a Supplementary Estimate for forestry became necessary, the accumulated level of funds in the grant-in-aid, — in relation to the volume of projected land acquisitions for the year — was such that it was possible to utilise £600,300 towards reducing the supplementary demands. The amount spent on land acquisition in 1980 was, in fact, about £1.25 million.
As regards 1981, it is expected that the aggregate intake of plantable land will be in the region of 16,000 acres. A precise break-down of this area on a county basis is not feasible at this stage but the indications are that, in line with the pattern of recent years, the bulk of it will be in western counties.
Will the Minister tell the House why it was considered necessary to introduce a Supplementary Estimate when it was not needed then? Is it not true that the reason it was not used was that the Department did not wish to spend it on the basis that the Government could not afford it? Is it not true that if 16,000 acres have been acquired it represents a big drop in the number of acres required to keep up the standard of 25,000 acres, a standard that was set many years ago? Will the Minister tell the House if it is intended to abandon the forestry programme as well as everything else?
It is not the intention of the Minister to abandon the forestry programme. In fact, the reverse is the case and it is my hope that 1981 will be a very successful year in the Forestry Division.
How can the Minister say that the programme is not being abandoned when only 16,000 acres will be acquired in 1981? How will it be possible in years to come to plant 25,000 acres when we are only acquiring 16,000 acres annually? I accept that the Minister of State is standing in for the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry.
It is impossible for me to give the type of information the Deputy has asked for. I am standing in for the Minister at short notice.
Does the Minister accept that there are difficulties in acquiring land because of the price offered and the delays in payment? Will the Minister indicate the current average price being paid for land by the Forestry Division? Will the Minister indicate why there is such a great delay in paying for the land once agreement has been reached?
There has always been difficulty in negotiating the price for land. I suppose this is one of the reasons that the acreage being planted is dropping because the increase in grants for reclamation is enticing people to reclaim much of this land rather than sell it to the Forestry Division. That would be one of the reasons. The question of title is another reason. Very often in the type of land being transferred to the Forestry Division the title of the land is not correct and that can create problems also.
I thank the Minister of State for that information, but I must point out that he did not deal with the questions I asked. The two matters to which I referred were, firstly, the average price per acre at present and whether that is a factor in negotiating deals; secondly, and more importantly, the delay in payment once an agreement has been reached, delays of which I am personally aware, and which would appear to lie within the Department. Can the Minister enlighten the House in any way on either of those points?
No, I have not the average price being paid at present but I am sure that that would be a factor because the price paid for land of this type has always been low and I am sure it would be a factor in deals.
And delays?
Question No. 42.