Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 20 Nov 1969

Vol. 242 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Vote 34: Lands (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the vote be referred back for reconsideration.

—(Deputy L'Estrange.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I do not intend to take up the time of the House very long on this Estimate. There are just a few points I should like to deal with although they have already been mentioned by a number of Deputies. The first is the question of payment for land by the Land Commission in land bonds. I know that this question has been raised in the House and, indeed, it has been raised by many interests with the Minister and with the Land Commission. It is generally accepted that this method of paying for land by the Land Commission is unfair and that it makes the position more difficult. It is unfair to the vendors of land and it makes it more difficult for the Land Commission to acquire land by agreement. It has been pointed out that the value of land bonds very often falls considerably between the date on which the land is purchased by the Land Commission and the date on which the land bonds are allocated to the vendor and the date on which the bonds are finally released. In other words, there can be a difference in the value of the land bonds between these dates. I consider this is unfair because the people who sell land to the Land Commission are supposed to get market value for the land. In fact, they are not getting market value for it. Very often they are getting considerably less than market value. The result of this is often, as I am sure the Minister himself understands from his professional experience as well as from his ministerial experience, that people are very slow to sell land to the Land Commission by agreement.

The question frequently asked is "Will I be paid in cash or will I get the wretched land bonds?" Most Government securities issued in recent years are acceptable by the Revenue Commissioners in payment of estate or death duties but this does not apply to land bonds. Further, in the case of other Government securities like the national loan. et cetera, the interest on them is paid to holders without deduction of income tax. Smallholders have not to go to the trouble of applying for a refund of income tax. Land bonds, however, have income tax deducted from the interest due on them. This is another aspect of the matter which renders them less attractive than a national loan. I appeal to the Minister to tackle this matter which has given trouble to landowners for so long. The Minister knows that professional men also receive remuneration for dealings in land in the

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): form of land bonds. Their fees may be measured in £X but they are really getting less than £X by the time the land bonds reach them. This may not be as important as the loss suffered by the vendors of land, but it is an important point. I did not feel it would be right to let this Estimate be passed without adding my voice to those of other Deputies who have spoken on this particular topic.

The Forestry Division of the Department of Lands could perhaps pay more for land for afforestation in order to expedite their business. They do not invoke their compulsory acquisition powers very often. That is the position in my constituency. They offer so little for land they are finding it very difficult to get the quantity of land they want for planting. The difference between the amount of money involved would not be very considerable. They expect to get land for as little as £10 an acre. If they give £30 an acre in some parts of the country they think they are being very generous to the vendors. They will not get land for such sums of money. I appeal to the Minister to look into this aspect of the matter with a view to encouraging this section of his Department to approach the purchase of land in a more realistic way and to make it more attractive for the owners to dispose of land to his Department for forestry planting.

To return now to the Land Commission, I would like to deal with the question of the delay in dividing land which comes into the possession of the Land Commission. One hears many complaints about the Land Commission holding land for long periods before dividing it. This is a cause of considerable frustration to people who are waiting to have their holdings brought up to an economic standard. It is frustrating for a small farmer to see the Land Commission in possession of a substantial farm in his area for anything from two to five years before the farm is divided. It is frustrating to see the land being let for some years to large farmers in the area. This is also bad for the land because it is a period when such farmer takes all he can out of the land but does not put in fertilisers or look after the land properly. An appeal like this has been made to the Minister on many occasions. It is often dealt with in specific cases in this House by way of Parliamentary Question. We should continue to urge the Minister to do something about this situation and to see that there is no unnecessary or avoidable delay in the division of land.

When the Land Commission acquire land and divide it they should be very careful about rights of way. They should provide proper rights of way. They should not do anything which could be a source of trouble between neighbours after the land is divided and the Land Commission have moved out. I have known of cases where, because the Land Commission left rights of way in a state of uncertainty, bad feeling developed between neighbours and litigation followed. This is something which is to be deplored and something which should certainly be avoided, if at all possible. These are really the only points I wanted to deal with. I particularly wanted to deal with the land bonds and the delays in the division of land.

Minister for Lands (Mr. S. Flanagan)

First of all, I think the level of the debate over the past two or three days on this Estimate has been extremely high and I should like to express to the many Deputies who contributed my thanks for the dispassionate way in which they discussed the important problems involved for both the Department of Lands and the Forestry Division. I would go so far as to say that, of the 19 Estimates debates I have listened to or taken part in since I came to this House, this debate has been far and away the best.

I am afraid it would be impossible for me to deal in detail with the many points that were raised but I do undertake to examine all the suggestions made by Deputies and to communicate with them if I do not deal with them here. I am more interested in dealing with policy and the future prospects in regard to both lands and afforestation problems. If I may deal very briefly with forestry, I think I can say that it is an accurate reflection of the feelings of the House that the Forestry Division not merely proves that a State body can be successful and efficient but can in fact do an altogether excellent job. The only criticism offered here by any Deputy was that the afforestation programme should be increased and that the target of 25,000 acres should be restored as soon as possible, some Deputies suggesting that this target is itself not set high enough.

Changes were made in the acquisition procedure and, as a result of these, the reserve of plantable land is now rapidly improving. I do not think I need to tell the House what these changes were because I assume most Deputies are aware of them. Suffice it to say that this drive will be continued because no target can be achieved in forestry unless there is a sufficient reserve of land on which to operate. This year, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, it will again not be possible to achieve the 25,000 acre target. I sincerely hope that, as a result of the success of the acquisition drive throughout the country, next year the 25,000 acre target will be realised and that in the future for every subsequent year the same position will obtain.

I have plans for certain areas which I regard as being particularly suitable for forestry. I refer in particular to County Leitrim and I should like to inform the House that I have directed the Forestry Division to make an all out drive to acquire land in County Leitrim, to plant it and thereby give employment to as many people as possible in that area. This perhaps involves acceptance of the fact that most of the land in Leitrim is not suitable for development in agriculture. It is as well to face realities in regard to matters like this and to abandon the effort to make a living where a living is not to be got. There are other questions in regard to forestry to which I shall return later. I want to thank Deputies for accepting the fact that the Forestry Division is doing good work and to assure them, in return, that the target of 25,000 acres will be achieved next year and in subsequent years.

In regard to the whole vexed question of the Department of Lands and of the Land Commission there has been in this and in previous debates universal disapproval of the land bond system. It is no part of my function to defend the indefensible and I do not regard the land bond system as being defensible. I therefore do not propose to defend it. If in ordinary commerce one enters into a contract to buy or sell and one does not pay the price one can be brought into court and forced to do so. I have always considered that any system whereby a person ultimately does not receive what is purported to be paid to him is not fair. All I can add is that I will do my best to put an end to this system altogether and to say that in regard to any land that may have been acquired from the time I took over there will be no discrepancy between the amount agreed to be paid by the State and the actual amount of cash received by the person concerned.

I appreciate that there are difficulties involved in this and that it may be easier to talk about than to do. I have already pointed out to the House that for the Land Commission to pay exclusively in cash would at the present rate of Land Commission activity involve the finding of an extra £2 million or more out of the Capital Budget which itself is under pressure from all sides because of the mounting cost of our capital development programme.

Deputy Esmonde and others were, some of them amusingly and others in an irate way, critical of the Land Commission. I should like to distinguish here between the Land Commission and the Minister for Lands and to point out to the House that the Land Commission merely executes the policy which is laid down for them by the Oireachtas and by successive Governments. I interjected at one stage to say that I would not answer for the Land Commission. Neither will I, because they are a commission and once they are given a policy they have the responsibility for executing that policy, and there are reserved to them many powers which they alone can exercise. I would therefore not pretend to answer for the decisions that they make from time to time in regard to acquisition, division and so on. I would, of course, and do accept responsibility for the policy which is handed to them to operate. It has been suggested by many Deputies, notably Deputy Desmond in his excellent contribution, that the time has come to reassess the policy we give the Land Commission to operate. I agree with him. Over the last few months I have given a great deal of thought to what the future role of the Land Commission should be, whether the present policy is the right one, whether the social consequences of the implementation of that policy have been good or otherwise. The other side to this, that because of the recent enormous increase in the value of land the ultimate cost of land to the person who receives it, raises the question in his mind as to whether or not he should accept. I do not have to tell the House that in the eastern part of Ireland at present the value of land is such that it would make it impossible for any commission to acquire it and give it to farmers at an economic rent. In the other parts of the country, where land can still be acquired at an economic price, the questions asked by Deputy Desmond still remain to be answered—you give land, for what purpose and to be put to what use?

In my opinion, the thinking of the Members of this House at this stage should be coloured by the fact that we are now very likely to become members of the European Economic Community by, say, 1975. This House is aware of the agricultural policy being implemented and intended to be implemented in the future in the EEC. Therefore, we must examine our policy, not merely in relation to our own problems but also in relation to the problems which will arise on our entry into the Common Market. In this regard I consider Deputy L'Estrange went a long way towards articulating my feelings in regard to this country when that situation occurs. It took him a while to come around to the logic of his own argument but I think he accepts, as I do, that it is unthinkable that we should develop in this country anything on the lines of a Mansholt Plan. We should rethink the question as to what is and what is not an economic or viable holding of land and in the process answer the questions asked by Deputy Desmond and others: "For what purpose, and for what use, is land being given to our people?"

I consider it is largely irrelevant what an economic holding of land is. It may be 60 acres or 70 acres or it may be more. Candidly I do not think it has any relevance to the west of Ireland in particular, and instead of setting out to give economic holdings to people we should, instead, try to set up a system of part-time farming through which we would have a rapid increase in industrial employment and in employment in forestry and we should leave as many of our people as possible on their small 20-acre farms. I realise that this represents a radical change in view and I take responsibility for that. I would prefer that we would have more people rather than fewer in the west of Ireland. I was extremely interested indeed when Deputy O'Hara from my own county expressed this view as well. He freely conceded that 20 years ago he had argued in the opposite direction. It is very much to his credit that he should come into this House and say he has changed his mind.

I believe he is right in what he says now and that however well-intentioned the policy in the old days was it should now be reversed. Indeed, it is interesting to observe that part-time farming has been proved in other countries to be more productive than full-time farming. I cannot give the references now but I will do so again. There are many reasons why this should be so. One is that a person who has employment off the land is obviously in a better position to capitalise his farming activities than if he were dependent on farming alone.

Mr. Tully

They say the most comfortable man in the country is the man with a few acres and a job.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I am saying that so far as the western areas of this country are concerned this is what I would like to see done in the future, because I believe the activity of farming as such in the future will be what is called agribusiness, that most of it will be done in co-ops and in that way answer the question of how you get a five-day cow.

If you have three people operating a farm then they do not have to work more than so many days a week. However, that is going off the subject I was dealing with just now, which is that in my opinion, in order to restore the vitality that is needed to be restored in certain parts of the west of Ireland we should change our policy from one of trying to give everybody an economic holding to one of trying to provide suitable employment in industry or forestry and leave our people with their small farms.

Now that Deputy O'Donovan has arrived I should like to assure him that even though there have been a number of Ministers for Lands from Mayo, some of us are capable of thinking in terms other than in terms of the west only. I agree with him in anything he said in praise of Seán Moylan. Seán Moylan was not merely the best Minister for Lands, he was one of the best men who ever entered this House.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. S. Flanagan

This is not to say that I agree with those who favour the idea that the Land Commission should be abolished. I categorically state that I do not so agree because I believe there will always be a function for the Land Commission, if only in matters like those raised by Deputy Oliver Flanagan, that is to say the question of the acquisition of land by aliens, or, as they are more often called, non-nationals. I cannot say I share the xenophobic attitude of my namesake because I do not consider that there are not any circumstances in which foreigners should be allowed to acquire land here.

As has been pointed out, our international obligations in future years will to some extent affect that situation anyway. All I have to add is that since the 1965 Act there has been a strict account kept by the Land Commission of all land acquired by aliens, and it is only in special circumstances that the land commissioners have agreed to the sale of land to foreigners in that period.

Mr. Tully

Would the Minister say which special circumstances, apart from those specified in the Act?

Mr. S. Flanagan

I stated in my opening remarks that some of it was the type of land which would not be suitable for agricultural use.

Mr. Tully

Along the seashore.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Some of it may have been on the seashore but, curiously enough, most of the land that is in the possession of people other than Irish was acquired in the years prior to 1965.

Mr. Tully

I can quite see that point.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I do not pretend to be able to say how much land is involved because much of it was acquired prior to 1961 when the first sort of semi-check on acquisition by foreigners was brought in through the operation of the 25 per cent stamp duty. Prior to that there was nothing to prevent anybody from acquiring all the land he wished on the open market and in respect of which he became the registered owner. Since 1965, however, I am satisfied that the commissioners have been very careful and have given consent to the sale of land to foreigners only when they were satisfied that doing so was not inimical to the interests of our own people. I have no doubt whatever that they will continue to operate that policy and I have also no doubt that the views expressed by many Members of the House, from all parties, in this debate and on other occasions will not go unnoticed by them.

Mr. Desmond

Could we have some special assurance regarding foreshore and river sales generally?

Mr. S. Flanagan

I do not know of any sale that has been sanctioned by the commissioners in recent years involving foreshore, but I will certainly bring the Deputy's views to their notice. As I have said, these are the views of most Members of the House. I do not agree with Deputy Tully that during the discussion on the relevant section of the Land Bill four years ago it became clear the intention was that non-nationals should not be allowed in any circumstances to purchase agricultural land. For instance, it is possible that a foreigner might be able to come along here to establish a farming system which might be of help to our own people and it has happened that where foreigners were prepared to experiment in that way the commissioners agreed to their purchasing the land.

Mr. Tully

Industry is specifically mentioned. Agriculture is an industry.

Mr. S. Flanagan

As the Deputy knows, the Department of Industry and Commerce, not the Land Commission, have power to sanction the sale of land to non-nationals where the land is to be used for industrial purposes.

Mr. Tully

The commissioners have the sole right of saying whether it may be done under the Act.

Dr. O'Donovan

While the Minister is thinking of which matter he will talk about next, may I ask him a question? It is about the huge increase in the secretariat staff of the Land Commission. Would the Minister say a few words about it?

Mr. S. Flanagan

Deputy Fahey and many others raised the question of subsidisation by the Land Commission of the annuity. I accept that where the person concerned is in a non-congested area and has to pay the economic rent, this can represent a severe burden on him, and I also acknowledge the fact that to give certain people in the country, namely those in the congested areas, land at half annuity is favouring them as against the others. I will say no more than that I am prepared to consider this whole question as to whether such a distinction should continue, but I will be very slow indeed to recommend that general subsidisation of the annuity should be practised.

Mr. Tully

Fianna Fáil came to power on it.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I do not think this would be good. I should much prefer that the people concerned would go out into the open market and buy the land themselves and that my function would be to give them interest-free loans or loans at a slightly subsidised rate rather than that the machinery of the Land Commission should be put into operation and that the end product would involve subsidisation of the rent. I think that this is an absurd proposition. I do not say this in any critical sense in regard to what Deputy Fahey said: I take his point because it has already happened that people allotted land have refused to accept it because the economics of the enterprise did not appear to them to be favourable. I, therefore, accept as valid the suggestion by Deputy Fahey and others that some form of subsidisation should be provided at that level but I am totally against it and would much prefer that these people would not be involved with the Land Commission at all but would go on the open market and, perhaps, be assisted to do so and thereafter be helped in the capitalisation of their work to get them under way.

Deputy Donnellan and many others complained about delays. I fear this is something that is inherent in the system. I do not mean those delays which occur and about which Deputy Fitzpatrick and others spoke because, as the House knows, I have strong views about delays that occur between the time a person hands over possession and is ultimately paid in bonds. I undertook in the House to take every possible step to have that period reduced to the minimum. So far I have not been successful although I have had consultations with the Incorporated Law Society and others with a view to minimising the delay. I am taking other steps, some of them possibly not too democratic, but my interest is in reducing that delay to such a point that the statutory obligation of keeping the bonds at par will, as far as possible, be met.

The other delays, those inherent in the system, are the delays in the division of holdings and in the preparation of rearrangement schemes and so on. I agree that land which is let is likely to deteriorate. There is no question about it, a person who has land on letting or on conacre takes all he can out of it while he has it and then hands it back in whatever condition it may then be. But under present policy, where it is the intention of the Land Commission to try to resettle a whole area to solve the problems of all the people within that area, it is desirable that they should get enough land to do so. As the House knows, they may not be able to get all the land required at the time they want it and very often they must wait anything from two or three up to five or ten years before the final piece of the jig-saw falls into place and enables them then to go ahead with resettlement or rearrangement programmes for the entire area.

I fear, therefore, that so far as these delays are concerned there is not much I can say to the House other than they are inevitable under the system as it operates.

Mr. Coughlan

Change the system.

Mr. S. Flanagan

At least two or three Deputies mentioned that it was more economic for people in congested areas to refuse land than to accept it and this applies even where the 50 per cent annuity operates. This point is valid and reinforces my view that we would be adopting a sounder policy if we were to provide employment for as many people as possible and leave them with their 15 or 20 acre farms as a sideline. That represents a very considerable change in the system, particularly for the West of Ireland, and I shall await with interest public reaction to this statement.

Questions were asked about the reasons for the deficiency in the income from lands on the hands of the Land Commission. It would appear that for the past two years gross outgoings and gross receipts have been roughly comparable. In 1968-9 gross outgoings were £406,604 while gross receipts were £437,145. In the previous year the figures were £345,000 outgoings and £342,000 receipts. In fact, over the last two years receipts and outgoings roughly balanced.

Dr. O'Donovan

Why was the sum of £5,000 put in under the subhead?

Mr. S. Flanagan

Which £5,000?

Dr. O'Donovan

The £5,000 under the subhead for receipts where normally there is only a token amount of £5.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Because the outgoings, I gather, are going up faster than the income.

Dr. O'Donovan

That would obviously be the reason but I do not quite understand why, with cattle so high in price, lettings would not be remunerative unless the Land Commission is left with land that is awkward to handle or something like this.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Rents average about £7 an acre throughout the whole of Ireland and, as the Deputy knows, rates and other outgoings have not got a noticeable tendency to diminish.

Mr. Tully

The Minister gets nearly £40 an acre in Meath.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I understand that the average all over the country is £7 an acre. The figures I have given are not referable to any particular part of the country.

Mr. Tully

There would be bad portions.

Mr. S. Flanagan

There would be bad portions and good ones. The figure I gave is the overall price per acre which the Land Commission receive.

Dr. O'Donovan

Does the Minister qualify in each county separately for relief of rates or is he taken as being one owner over the whole country?

Mr. S. Flanagan

One owner over the whole country.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Minister would not get very much on that issue then.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I will return now, if I may for a moment, to some of the points raised on the Forestry Vote. Many Deputies urged that a suitable superannuation or pension scheme should be introduced for forestry workers. Deputies also raised the question of a travelling allowance for forestry workers who have to travel considerable distances. I must say I have every sympathy with the point of view that forestry workers, like others, should have a proper superannuation or pension scheme. Obviously, because of the nature of the work, not all forestry workers are permanent. Therefore, some special scheme might be devised. There is a scheme in existence but, in my opinion, it is not adequate. I hope that, in the near future, a more satisfactory pension scheme will be hammered out and put into operation. I agree that the present one is inadequate and should be replaced by a better one.

Mr. Tully

It is not a pension scheme. It is only a grautity.

Mr. S. Flanagan

There is a gratuity only in operation at the moment and I do not regard it as being adequate. I would hope that in the near future I will be able to bring in a scheme which will look after these people properly. Unfortunately, people who draw up schemes like this are usually sitting at desks and they think more about people sitting at desks than about people who get up on snowy mornings and have to get on a bicycle and go ten or 15 miles.

Mr. Coughlan

Good man.

Mr. S. Flanagan

That would apply to some of Deputy Tully's friends as well. If the cap fits they can wear it.

Mr. Tully

The Minister is aware that we had a hand in the local authority scheme and if he gives us that we will accept it.

Mr. S. Flanagan

In regard to the opening up of forests I was asked why this has not been done, but I should like to point out that it is being done. In the next 12 months, under the plans for European conservation year, there will be special projects designed to interest our young people in forests which will enable them to adopt a section of a forest in their locality, visit it and be responsible, to some extent, for its development. In that way we hope to make our young people aware of the advantages and the beauty of forests, developed and developing.

I have mentioned European conservation year and, perhaps, I should draw the attention of certain newspaper writers, who talk about a lack of interest on the part of Ministers in the question of conservation, to the statements I made both inside the House and outside it in regard to this very important matter, and particularly in regard to European conservation year. During European conservation year I hope to put an idea into operation, which is, to provide play centres in forests for younger children coming out on day trips from the cities.

I am sure it will be a pleasant change for children going to school in urban areas to be able to go to a local forest on a day trip. I have already mentioned visits to forests by children in primary schools and the adopting by the schools of a local forest so that in that way our children may learn the value of our programme and become interested in trees.

Deputy Esmonde mentioned the natural regeneration of our forests. Many other countries, including Sweden, are swinging away from natural regeneration to what is called artificial regeneration, in other words, using plants raised in nurseries for regeneration purposes. This method enables the service to select the species which are considered most suitable for the area involved, and to use plants grown from selected and better strains of seed. In the long run I believe this produces a better result and is, therefore, in the last analysis, a better approach.

Deputy O.J. Flanagan mentioned the failure to plant trees along our coasts and cited the Bay of Biscay as a comparable area. I am advised that there are quite a number of factors involved here and, in particular, that the storms in the Bay of Biscay do not compare in intensity with the storms that occur along our western seaboard and, also, that the area adjoining the Bay of Biscay is flat and exposure, therefore, is more easily dealt with than on rising ground facing the sea. The area also benefits from the fact that the trees grown are indigenous and, therefore, particularly suited to the soil. At the same time, advances are being made all the time in regard to the utilisation of land along the sea for planting purposes and every possible effort will continue to be made to plant where possible, especially in areas where employment is scarce.

Again in reply to Deputy Desmond, there has been no change whatever in the policy in relation to fencing. The forestry service fences for its own protection and the practice has always been and still is to fence young plantations for their own protection. When they are matured this protection is no longer necessary and fencing is not renewed because, like others, the forestry service has no legal obligation to fence its land, nor would it be reasonable to expect it to undertake the cost throughout the country of fencing merely for the benefit of adjoining owners. It is the obligation of the owners themselves to do fencing so as to protect their own stock.

There were many other points raised but, as I said at the beginning, I am more concerned with general policy and will deal with the individual, minor items mentioned, some of them of a local character, by getting in touch direct with the Deputies concerned.

In my view we should rethink the whole question of Land Commission policy in the light of recent trends of the cost of land, in the light of the fact that we are likely to be in the EEC in a short number of years, and in the light of the experience we have had down the years of the operation of our various Acts. Where the western areas, from which I come myself, are concerned, I would prefer to see the abandonment of the effort to provide an economic holding for our farmers, for I believe this would have socially undesirable effects. I believe it would be much better to keep as many as possible on the land as part-time farmers and, therefore, that the drive should not be to provide an economic holding on the land but to provide a job which would enable the householder to become and to remain a part-time farmer on a small holding. Those who are not interested in being part-time farmers and who instead wish to make their living in farming should be encouraged to do so. I should like to make that clear as well, so that if a young man says: "I am not interested in working in a forest or in a factory; I want to be a full-time farmer and nothing else," he should be encouraged to remain on the land but not encouraged to the point of being allowed to acquire a disproportionate amount of the land anywhere.

With regard to the eastern areas of the country, the price of land has now made the activities of the Land Commission impossible and, therefore, redundant. A special policy in respect of those areas will have to be worked out independent of the Land Commission and, therefore, independent of my responsibility and under some other aegis.

Then I come to the question raised as to whether the Department of Lands as such should be a separate ministry or should be amalagamated, as suggested in the Devlin Report, with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the other question as to whether the forestry service should be reconstituted as a semi-State body. My view is that the forestry service as it is is extremely successful and that, if the Department of Lands were to be abolished and the amended functions of the Department put under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, this should not include the Forestry Division. In those circumstances it would possibly be preferable to set up a commercial, semi-State body, say, on the lines of Bord na Móna, and that that body would be responsible not merely for the implementation of our forestry programme but also for all aspects of timber and all the allied industrial undertakings associated with the by-products of trees.

In the last analysis it is obvious that anything to do with the land should be under the control of one Minister. When all is said and done, the land is the most precious asset of this country and, in my opinion, it will remain the most precious asset for a long time to come.

Dr. O'Donovan

Take over the land project.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Whether it is under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries or not, one body should be responsible for all aspects of land, and it is not sensible that there should be two Departments going conceivably in different directions at the same time. Everything to do with the land affects not merely the land and the people but every other aspect of their activity, so that one could say that every other ministry should be brought in under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. I would be the last to suggest that, I assure the House, but I say that it is sensible that the activities of the Department of Lands should be amalgamated in a reorganised Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Therefore, I am suggesting my own abolition. I do not know if it is a record to come into the House and suggest that you are yourself redundant——

Mr. Desmond

Will the Minister get redundancy pay?

Mr. S. Flanagan

—— but it has been suggested by the Devlin Report and, subject to certain minor reservations, I agree in general with the report. If that eventually turns out to be the Government's view—which I do not know, because that has not been decided—I would, in those circumstances, recommend the establishment of a semi-State body on the lines of Bord na Móna to carry on the very successful work which the House has agreed the Forestry Division is doing over the years, and, as I say, not merely confine it to the implementing of the forestry planting programme but also to deal with every other aspect of the product.

I appreciate that many points have been raised which I have not dealt with but it would obviously take me too long to do so as I have agreed to finish not later than 12 o'clock in order that the debate on the Estimate for the Office of Public Works be continued. I must say again what I said at the beginning of my remarks: that I do not recall a debate in this House of such a high standard as this one. I am grateful to all speakers, from Deputy L'Estrange who led off on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy O'Donovan who led off on behalf of the Labour Party and the many members of my own party for their thoughtful, helpful contribution to this debate.

I would assure Deputies that if we are all alive this time next year I hope we will have made considerable progress in achieving the more or less agreed goals. It appeared to me that there was basically very little difference in policies so far as the Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fáil approaches to the problems are concerned; I think it is only a question of emphasis. I should hope, therefore, by the time we come along in 12 months time that I will have managed to put into operation the things I have myself promised and the things which I know reflect the agreed wishes of the House.

Mr. Tully

I expect the Minister would make an excellent Minister for Agriculture. Could the Minister answer two short questions for me? When the Minister talks about the part-time farmer in Mayo, does he apply the same criteria to the part-time farmer in Meath because this will change completely the whole attitude of land division? At the present time a person in Meath who is a part-time farmer will not get land, and I believe he should. The second point is that, if there is to be a scaling down on the purchase of land in the eastern portion of the country, does the Minister consider that the loans to young farmers to buy lands should be extended to the eastern portion?

Mr. S. Flanagan

I shall give consideration to that because, as I mentioned in my reply, I am attracted more to the idea of helping young people, either by giving them interest-free loans or by some other method, because sometimes—and it is not the fault of the Land Commission—land is given to people not basically interested in it. I am interested in helping the person who is dedicated to the idea of farming. With regard to the other part of the question, obviously there will be many side effects to a change of policy on this matter. I see no reason why a person should be debarred from getting land merely because he is in employment. In my part of the country it has been the practice that a person who has six to eight acres of land and who works in a factory is virtually debarred from getting an increase in land, even though he proves himself by his activity on his few acres to be very successful. In the circumstances land is given to people merely because they are congests and not because they are really interested in it.

Dr. O'Donovan

I reminded the Minister this morning of what I regard as a serious question and that is the huge increase in the staff of the secretariat of the commission. Estimates are supposed to be matters of detail. There is an increase in the total staff of the Land Commission of ten this year. There is a very big decrease—and a very good thing—in the purchase branch because obviously their work has been completed, but that has been more than made up by what I regard as a colossal increase in the staff of the secretariat of the Land Commission. I appreciate that the present Minister was not the Minister for Lands when this was done but I would like to know what these people are doing?

Mr. S. Flanagan

The 1965 Act, which brought in so many new schemes, involved a massive drive for the acquisition of land and obviously there was an increase in the secretariat as well as in the number of workers in the field to deal with this.

Dr. O'Donovan

There is a separate acquisition and resale division and that is where the staff for the acquiring of this new land would need to be provided. This kind of increase is wrong at a time when we are told there is reason for economy.

Mr. S. Flanagan

The figures for the acquisition and resale division in the year 1968 to 1969 are 242 and for the year 1969 to 1970 the figures are 230 which is a decrease of 12. There was an increase in the commissioners and secretariat from 163 to 199 which is an increase of 36. The overall increase between the two departments is 24.

Dr. O'Donovan

Does that mean that the work of the acquisition and resale division has been transferred in part to the commissioners and secretariat section?

Mr. S. Flanagan

Yes.

Motion to refer back, by leave, withdrawn.

Vote put and agreed to.