Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 16 Dec 1958

Vol. 171 No. 16

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Land Project.

23.

asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will reconsider the decision to discontinue work under Section B of the Land Project in the congested districts counties in view of the inability of small farmers to finance the work and the great necessity of increasing the arable acreage particularly of small holdings.

The answer is in the negative.

Is the Minister aware that the termination of that section of the Land Project will be a particular hardship on small farmers, especially those in the congested districts, who have a fairly high proportion of bad land needing reclamation? If he still adheres to his former decision, will there be any improvement for that type of farmer under Section A of the scheme?

I am not aware that any such effect should arise from the decision. I regard Section A as more suitable to small holdings than any other approach and I regard as generous the amount, £30 per statute acre, as a maximum, that will be made available to them for the proposed improvement work.

Does the Minister consider that in many cases small farmers are unable to undertake the work themselves, that they are unable to get the work going under Section A and that the land they proposed to do must now go undone?

That would seem not to be the case since 75 per cent. of the work that is being done is being done under Section A all over the country.

That is no answer.

May I ask the Minister does he realise that the termination of Section B means that any small farmer who cannot put down the cash to do the work on his own land is precluded from having it done at all, whereas in the past Section B enabled him to get the work done and have the cost of it added to his annuity, to be paid for on the instalment plan?

I realise, not what the Deputy suggests, but something else, that most of the money that was expended under Section B was, in fact, expended on the large holdings rather than on the small holdings and I contend that Section A is far more suitable inasmuch as no small farmer can afford to have his small area taken on at once and, therefore, he will decide on doing it piecemeal, with the result that he can do it with his own labour, supplied by his family or otherwise. I contend, again, that the provision that is made by the State by way of grant of a maximum of £30 per statute acre is generous.

I agree; I am not disputing that fact but I want to draw the Minister's particular attention, without arousing heat of any kind, to the fact that a vast number of small farmers will not be able to undertake the work they had planned, under Section A. They have not the necessary help and have not the cash to put down which is demanded by the private contractor. I want to assure the Minister that the termination of Section B is doing grievous damage to a certain section of small farmers.

The Minister is completely right, because he has examined this thing very closely, in saying that it was not in fact the small farmers that have been dealt with in the main under Section B.

A number of small farmers have been able to avail of it and cannot avail of it now.

The Department went in for the big farmer and gave the small farmer the cold shoulder.

Barr
Roinn