Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 5 Jul 1973

Vol. 267 No. 3

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).

Mr. Crowley

When I reported progress last night I had covered the whole question of conservation and expressed the view that the Department of Lands was the ideal co-ordinating Department in relation to conservation. I also mentioned that I thought we were not doing enough towards the establishment of national parks and suggested Glengariff as being the ideal location at which to start this policy. As the House knows, the importance of conservation was realised a long time ago, and I do not think any country can rival America for the national parks programme upon which they embarked so long ago. It can be said as well that in that country technical and industrial civilisation has reached a higher peak than in any other country in the world. Therefore, the pressure on them to conserve their wildlife and their natural habitat was extremely high. Again, it can be said of America that it is civilisation of waste. Where you have technical and industrial development of that magnitude you do have this waste.

President Kennedy, in his term of office, saw the importance of adopting a series of measures in relation to conservation and the maintenance of a proper natural balance and providing proper legislation to ensure victory in the battle against many forms of pollution. One of those Acts, the Wilderness Act, indicates that the American nation wishes to reconcile material progress with conservation of natural resources. The time has arrived in this country when we are showing the maturity as a nation to have beauty and the preservation of beauty as part of our national purpose. I realise very well that the Minister, in the administration of this branch of his Department, has a most difficult task in that he has so many authorities to deal with—all the local authorities and a great many public authorities, such as the Office of Public Works, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Foras Forbartha, the Department of Education and the planning section of the Department of Local Government, to name but a few.

As I said last night, the time is now ripe for the Government to take a decision to place the entire responsibility for conservation and the preservation of our natural habitat in the hands of one Minister. The present multiplicity of authority means duplication of effort, inefficiency, lack of co-ordination and, in the event of anything going wrong, an unwillingness on the part of the various authorities involved to accept responsibility. Strictly speaking, none of these authorities deals with nature conservation as such and many of them have duties and responsibilities which conflict with conservation. That is why I say I think the time is now ripe for us to adopt a comprehensive policy on conservation. The problems of conservation must in a general sense be linked with man's survival. It is no function of ours to take the part of the philosopher; man has made serious mistakes in regard to his environment. It is time we signed a new pact with nature to ensure that we, our children and our children's children survive in harmony with nature. If we do that we will ensure the survival not alone of nature but of man as well. We have no right to go on attacking nature as we have been doing. The most charitable thing that can be said about these attacks is that we operated in the main through ignorance but ignorance can no longer be claimed as a legitimate excuse for our acts because everybody who reads, who listens or who watches must now be aware of the dangers that face us unless positive action is taken.

A national policy of conservation will not be easily attained. There will necessarily be involved the reconciliation of conflicting interests. On the one side there will be the industrialists and the question of bringing employment into an area and, on the other side, there will be those anxious to respect and preserve our national character, our traditions and our historical heritage in every area. I do not believe we need to destroy one in order to create the other. I believe a fine balance can be attained. This all goes back again to the definition of a national policy. If we formulate such a policy we will not then be faced with the danger of vast industrial development and the destruction of nature because the two, under a properly designed policy, can go hand in hand.

Industrialisation should always be as far as possible complementary to the area into which it goes. Because of our history we have had to devote a tremendous amount of our thoughts and energies to material things, to a materialistic society, to economic development. We were a poor country and we needed to do a great deal very quickly. While we may not as yet be classified as a developed country we are certainly a fast developing country and more of us now must take a responsible attitude towards conservation. The Minister's Department and the Forestry Branch must make up for the lost years, endeavour to have more afforestation and lay out as many nature trails as possible together with visual displays of nature.

It can be fairly said that the Department of Lands is doing a reasonable job. There are very dedicated and efficient staffs working in the Department. While we may criticise them at times, and criticise especially their inaction in certain respects, we should remember that a great deal of that inaction has been due to a lack of financial commitment on the part of the central authority to the Department. There is no problem that cannot be solved if there is sufficient money provided to solve it. If we want to control our environment and control pollution we must remember that the obstacles to such control are, in the main, economic; they are not technical. As I said, pollution is a by-product of industry and, if we have the money to spend, there are technologists available who can, who will and who must control pollution.

I would press on the Minister the urgency of his immediately implementing more effective laws to prevent pollution by laying down the strictest possible standards, especially standards in regard to what may be discharged or may not be discharged into the air, the sea, the rivers and the lakes. Everybody should know that it is illegal to pollute significantly.

Of course, as in all cases prevention is much better than cure. Factories should be required to use smokeless fuel and to instal equipment to purify fumes or effluent and to take effective and specific measures to prevent spills. Are there enough scientists and qualified technical men in the Department to advise the Minister on what are the standards and permissible levels which should be enforced? On the political front we have shown a certain inertia about this problem. From now on none of us should be complacent about the tremendous countryside we have inherited.

Mr. Taylor

The Department of Lands will assume a more important role in the years ahead. I should like to convey my compliments to the Minister on his appointment to that office. We have confidence that in the years ahead he will bring the mature and well balanced consideration to the Department necessary to arrive at mature decisions. Never before have we been presented with more favourable opportunities to external markets for our agricultural produce. The Department of Lands have played and will play in the years ahead a vital role in bringing about a more economic and successful well contented rural community.

The Minister's predecessor was a very courteous and approachable Minister. The officials at Merrion Street and in the County of Clare have been very helpful to me and to my constituents. They could not have shown more consideration in dealing with the day-to-day problems of their Department.

The fact that we are to invest more money in the acquisition of land in the years ahead gives some indication of the Government's policy on the importance of creating viable units in congested areas. It is one of my regrets that over the years when land was relatively cheap the Land Commission were not given adequate funds to purchase land in areas where people were disposed to sell their land. There should have been more foresight.

Because of our impending entry to the European Economic Community and knowing that the prices and high values placed on lands on the Continent, it was easy to see that on our coming into the Community values of our property would go very high. Had there been more foresight at the right time we would have acquired a pool of land, particularly in the congested areas, which would have been much more economic to the State. We would have conserved our resources by buying at the right time and at the right price, rather than now in a highly competitive market when we are competing with people from abroad.

Unfortunately, we do not seem to be in a position to restrict speculators. When I say "speculators" I do not refer to our Irish people engaged in farming, big or small, or people associated with giving a service to farmers: in an open market they are entitled to the full exercise of their rights to have freedom to buy land. Nevertheless, one must be influenced by conditions in one's own area when dealing with the Department of Lands. One must be influenced by conditions as seen in the area in which one lives. Broadly speaking, people residing in areas where the quality and potential of the land is not good, express a real desire to continue to live where their forefathers strove to retain their small holdings. My opinion is reinforced by the complete failure of the retirement policy which the Department of Lands attempted to introduce some years ago. The fact that so few people in their old age were inclined to give up their holdings for acquisition meant that the scheme had to be abandoned. That is a clear indication of the real love of our people to cling firmly to their small holdings.

We have a problem of an inadequate pool of land in congested areas. We have more applicants for that pool than we have land to give. What can we do in order to satisfy people who wish to live in their own areas? It is obvious that the Land Commission must have a tie-in with the other Departments of State, particularly the agencies promoting employment, such as the Industrial Development Authority and, in my region, the Shannon Free Airport Development Company. Because of inadequate sources of livelihood in the congested areas, an attempt must be made quickly to tie up industrialisation. Otherwise, it would seem that we are happy and contented to allow a situation of depopulation, which has been painfully obvious, to continue. The policies which have been implemented were not successful in combating this continuing trend.

Let us bear in mind in particular the many thousands of people in the congested areas of the extreme West who find it necessary to emigrate. Despite the national policy to stop the flow of emigration it is obvious that the powers that be allowed this flow to continue without taking much notice of it. Land alone will not solve the problem of the congest. Of course, a congest living in an area where vast estates could be acquired would be luckier than others, but we must deal with the situation as we find it in any area. Strangely enough, statistics show that the highest rate of production in this country is in areas where there is a great problem of congestion. I refer in particular to high milk production in areas such as West Clare, where pilot areas have been established, where we have pioneered our way into the future and can show others what it is possible to achieve by the adoption of a proper farm policy, even on holdings which were not considered to be viable.

In the context of our future expansion within the EEC it is important that we make the best use of the funds that will be made available to us and that a proper farm policy be adopted. The expansion of that programme should be undertaken now, all the various services should be co-ordinated and we should concentrate on certain regions. I refer in particular to areas of high congestion. It was not for fun that, some months ago, representatives from the West of Ireland gathered in Galway to discuss certain matters. They came together because of the serious discontent which had been brewing for many years and which was then reaching a climax. This discontent resulted from the failure of existing policies to bring about the necessary changes and to create the same opportunities for the people in the West as those enjoyed by people in other parts of the country. Is it not strange that it should have been left to public representatives, both of the Oireachtas and of local authorities, as well as to members of chambers of commerce and others to bring to the notice of the authorities the urgency of doing something practical to correct the trend which has been accepted up to now. The gravity of the situation is no less today than it was when that meeting took place in Galway.

The Government should now put forward a policy in which the Department of Lands could play a vital role, a policy that would undo the harm that has been caused down through the years by the very obvious neglect of the West. From the 1st October next the special system of aids within the EEC will be channelled to the poorer and more congested areas. It is vital, therefore, that we should have a regional policy so that we might redress the ills of the past. We should have had such a policy long ago.

From time to time the Land Commission are subjected to much criticism because of a slowness in resettling people in congested areas. However, those people who criticise most are often unaware of the procedures that must be adopted in regard to the relief of congestion. Such people very often ignore the fact that a man has the right to retain his holding and that every opportunity will be given to him to do so if he considers himself fit to continue working his farm. Such factors are taken into consideration before there is any question of acquisition, and inspection is considered also in some cases. Critics of the Land Commission ignore the fact that a man has a right of appeal to the Land Commission courts in his efforts to retain his holding. Questions of title arise also and there can be long delays in this regard.

The determining of an applicant's suitability for land is always a problem for officials of the Department but I have never yet known them to make a bad judgment in this regard. Neither have I ever seen political influence manifesting itself in any case. I have absolute confidence in the Department of Lands and in the impartiality of the manner in which the officials carry out their duties.

In regard to the Forestry Division it is clear that some counties have fared very well but it is painfully clear that other counties have not got a fair share of the moneys that are allocated for afforestation. In my own county it is only comparatively recently that areas have been planted which should have been planted long ago because of their great potential for the growth of native timber. I do not know why that potential was ignored but because of that failure, in an area where we are fortunate enough to have a timber products factory of worldwide fame, I can see a difficulty in the years ahead in securing the necessary supply of timber to continue in production and to give the employment which is at present enjoyed by the people of that area. It is no great comfort to say that a proper survey was not made of available land which could have been planted over the past 25 or 30 years. However, perhaps it is better late than never. I would ask that every available acre be surveyed, bearing in mind the necessity to keep people employed in our timber industry in Clare.

Forest fires are caused by obvious carelessness and neglect and not always by people on holiday. Huge sums of money have been spent on alerting people about the necessity for protecting our forests but people who do not think still continue to do untold harm. In the months of March and April tens of thousands of pounds worth of damage has been done to our State forests. When will we cultivate a civic spirit and when will our young people, and perhaps our old people, realise the seriousness of having State forests ravaged by fire? There is nothing worse to look at than a blackened mass of grass and young trees marring the rural scene. It is a blemish on us as a people that this continues from year to year unabated. One wonders what approach should be taken by the Department, whether it should be done through the schools, the Press, radio or television. I think it must be done on a local basis in order that one gets the impact in one's own area. Notices have been displayed, notices have been ignored. If we could cut out this national damage we would certainly enhance our prospects and we would increase our acreage of native timber in the years ahead.

Deputy Crowley dealt very adequately with wild life conservation. I was very interested in what he had to say. His remarks would apply to the whole country. We have a conservation policy and we should maintain its impetus in the years ahead.

From time to time would-be planners seem to think that the scrapping of the Department of Lands and the Land Commission would bring about a rapid improvement in the relief of congestion. I could never subscribe to that view. Any delays which have occurred in the past were due to the inadequate number of staff available and to the fact that the Department did not have the money to purchase an adequate pool of land. I look forward to the role of the Department of Lands being an influential one in the creation of an improved economic existence for the people in the congested areas. The Ministry is a very important one and I would urge on the Government to see that every available pound is channelled into that Department so that they will have what they need to do a job they have done well over the years.

Mr. Gallagher

I should like to join with other Deputies in complimenting the Minister and his staff on the detailed manner in which this Estimate was introduced and on the way the work of this Department is carried out. I should like to congratulate the Minister on his appointment and I wish him every success.

Coming from a constituency where good land is at a premium the question of land and the division of land probably take up about half of our time as public representatives. Land is of vital importance in my constituency and, indeed, in the country as a whole. I am glad to see that the Minister is continuing the policy which has been in operation with regard to the congested areas. I am glad that the Minister is providing extra money to help people acquire more land in these areas.

I believe that the scheme for the distribution of land should be broadened somewhat. At present a farmer who wants to acquire land from the Land Commission must be a tenant, or have land in his own area or own land before he qualifies. It is a shame that over the years farmers' sons and people engaged on the land did not have an opportunity of getting land when estates were being divided in other parts of the country. The Minister should consider this question of trying to provide land for people who are genuinely interested in making a career of farming. I am referring to people who do not own land already.

The question of speculators is a big problem. These speculators try to grab everything that is going. If there is a farm for sale in the vicinity of a town we find that the keen businessman who has the ready cash endeavours to grab it. This means that there is less land available for the farmer, or his son. Quite recently the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries introduced a scheme restricting salmon licences to those who were genuine fishermen. The Department of Lands should operate on the same basis. They should make it part of their policy that only farmers or those genuinely interested in farming should be permitted to purchase land.

Apart from the fact that the activities of the speculators make land scarce they also put the price of land beyond the reach of farmers. If, through the actions of the Land Commission, land does fall eventually to a farmer it means that he has to buy it at a price which is far in excess of its agricultural value. The Minister should investigate this matter and ensure that, as far as possible, farmers are given first choice.

Another matter which is causing concern in my county is the delay in the allocation of land. Lands are left idle by the Land Commission for many years after they have been acquired. It is hard to explain to the farming community why this should happen. In Mayo during the past few years I noticed that many holdings were left idle and Land Commission houses, which could be used by young married couples, were allowed to fall into disrepair. This should not be allowed to happen. There is a loss in rates to the county council. The use of Land Commission houses by people in need of housing would also ease the burden on the local authority. In Mayo the question of these houses lying idle while so many people in the county are in need of housing has been raised many times. The Land Commission may be understaffed but I believe this should not be allowed to continue.

From the Minister's statement I notice that a good deal of land has been allocated. This gives the lie to what I have already stated but the fact is that the general public are not aware of the problems involved in allocating land, especially the legal problems. The Minister should use his good offices to try to get the Department of Justice to move quicker when dealing with the legal aspects of the allocation of land.

At present in my county there is a big drive to improve land and increase the acreage of land which is productive. Under the small farms scheme there are 3,570 applicants who are trying to increase their stocks, and make their land more productive. Because of the value of stock, and because markets are now available more people are taking a genuine interest in the land. I believe that the rate of emigration in the West has been slowed down because people now see the real value of land and the benefits that are to be gained from making their land more productive.

As the Minister is aware there are huge tracts of bog in County Mayo. Bord na Móna are working some areas but there are still vast areas which they are not likely to use. They have reported that there is not sufficient depth of bog available and it would not be economic for them to extend their operations in the county. The Minister has a choice of purchasing that land from the local farmers, or tenants for forestry but if he examines the position in Glenamoy and the grassmeal station at Geesala he will find that cuts of silage are being taken which would compare with anything being done in the country. It is quite obvious to everybody that this bog can be made productive and going on the information and knowledge gained from the work at Glenamoy and at the grassmeal plant in Geesala the Minister should try to have this land put to use for congests who could use it for grazing and to extend their present holdings.

In many areas of Erris private individuals have also reclaimed bogs and, taking the example at Geesala and at Glenamoy, they are making bogs productive. As Deputy Enright said last night, next to our people the land is the greatest wealth we have and it is important that every possible means be used to make the land productive. If we take forestry as against the argument I have made, I find at present in our part of the country there are people who have sold land to the Forestry Division who would be glad to have it for grazing. Because of sheep and lamb subsidies they find that land for grazing sheep and cattle would be of more benefit than having it used for afforestation. I am sure the Minister will have representations from those who have sold land for afforestation asking him to leave them the land. If a number of tenants who sold land for this purpose had a choice I am sure they would re-purchase it for grazing.

There is also the matter of the amount of employment given locally when an afforestation scheme is in progress. Generally very little local employment is given and from that point of view afforestation does not seem to have the desired effect. I wonder if the afforestation programme undertaken by the Department of Lands is having the desired effect and bringing the results expected. I am in no position to judge but perhaps the Minister would examine the situation. I think the methods we use in planting might also be examined. I understand that on the Continent, instead of doing a blanket job as we do whereby a whole area is planted, they plant trees in belts. This is probably more costly in that it increases fencing costs and so on, but there are compensations because space is left for grazing, the falling leaves help to fertilise the land and shelter is provided for animals. If this is feasible here it might help to satisfy those who are not satisfied at present because large areas are taken over in blanket developments.

Deputy Staunton mentioned commonage and its development. A few weeks ago I had a very detailed reply to a Dáil Question regarding the division of commonage. Because every inch of land in the west is so valuable we have a situation where one or two tenants, because of their location, always have the benefit of the commonage whereas people living a distance away are not so well served. I am sure there is no need for me to mention this; Land Commission officials are probably more aware of it than I am; the one or two people who are doing very well will always try to hold up any division of the commonage. This means that there is a long-drawnout process and it becomes next to impossible for the Land Commission to make any progress in this type of development. The Minister should make the fullest use of any powers he has to ensure that commonage is divided especially where it can be proved that this would create greater benefit for the people of the area.

I am delighted that the Minister has set down in such detail the EEC regulations but I hope we shall not take all of them too literally. If we were to accept all this jargon about what is a viable farm it would be a shame if we were to denude our countryside of its people and destroy our whole rural set up by having farms brought up to a standard which could be regarded as viable and which would, in fact, leave our countryside bare of people. This can be seen working already in parts of the West, and the previous Minister, Deputy Flanagan, a few years ago made reference to this question. Take, for instance, the town of Westport. Westport has a record for industry inasmuch as people of that area, long before there were State grants or before the IDA, got together and pooled their finances in order to bring industry to the town. If you look at the parishes immediately in the vicinity of Westport town you will find that there are small land holders, with 20-25 acres, sometimes less, whose families are coming into Westport to work in the factories. The farmer himself very often has a job in town and between the little holding and the job he has in town they are living quite comfortably. People who are engaged as agricultural instructors and so on will tell you that the man who has a job in town and who is farming, generally speaking, is doing quite well. Therefore, the answer would be to provide industries close to the holdings and have the farmers coming into work rather than depopulate the whole countryside by providing what we call viable holdings.

One of the things that causes a great deal of concern—and again this does not come within the Minister's territory but if I might, with your permission, refer to it briefly—is the question of land registration or the transfer of land. It seems rather strange to me that the Minister for Lands should not have control of this aspect of things.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Deputy is not alone in thinking that, because the Minister gets many letters from all over the country from people who are in difficulty with land registry and who think I can solve it. Fortunately, it is the Minister for Justice's responsibility.

Mr. Gallagher

If a person owns a car he gets a tax book and in that tax book there is reference to the first owner, second owner, third owner, and so on. If you are changing your car you just go into the local tax office, have a stamp put on it and that is it. I am not saying it is that simple, but I see no reason why we could not have an arrangement whereby a local land registry office would be available where people could go in and, through their solicitor or some agent——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy now knows the Minister has no responsibility in the matter.

Mr. Gallagher

I am suggesting that the Minister might discuss this matter with his colleague in the Department of Justice and see if some arrangement could be worked out which would be to the benefit of the general public. I understand this system is in operation in Australia and Canada.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The land certificate is broadly the same as the tax book, but what happens is that ownership skips from one person to another and the land certificate is never brought in or kept up to date, and then it becomes a problem.

Mr. Gallagher

Another matter to which the Minister did not refer in his speech, as far as I am aware, is the question of lakes and rivers. There are a number of lakes and rivers which are, I understand, under the control of the Department of Lands. They are a tremendous tourist asset and here there should be more liaison with Bord Fáilte and, possibly, in certain areas, with Roinn na Gaeltachta and the local authority to see that these rivers and lakes are utilised to the full. Very often they can be quite good for trout fishing. I understand Bord Fáilte have a programme for restocking these lakes. I know that in certain areas there are complications about ownership. Some of the old landlords selling their property to the Land Commission hold on to the gaming rights and very often perhaps some local people such as hoteliers or groups who are interested in having the lake developed for the sake of tourism find themselves in an impossible position when it comes to tracing title. The Minister should, if it is not within his power already, introduce legislation providing that where lakes and streams of this kind are not being fully utilised they should be handed over to local development associations, angling clubs, or people of that kind who would be anxious to develop them for their own pleasure and also in the tourist interest. In this respect I am sure he would have the full co-operation of the Inlands Fishery Trust and other groups.

Deputy Crowley referred to conservation. He made a very good case for conservation and I thoroughly agree with everything he said. We should all be interested in conservation and it is a shame that we have not been more active in this field. Perhaps the new curriculum in the schools will help to give the youth a greater appreciation of the value of wildlife and its preservation.

With regard to forest fires, it is a sad reflection on us that it costs in excess of £300,000 annually to safeguard plantations. How is it our people are so careless? How is it they have so little respect for beauty that they will throw away cigarette ends and cause so much damage to their own property? Perhaps, as I say, the new curriculum may help to educate the childern into a greater appreciation of these amenities and give them a greater respect for property and for wild life. There are a great many ways in which that £300,000 could be spent. I can think of hundreds of areas in which this money is badly needed. I really was appalled at the figure of £300,000 having to be spent on safeguarding our plantations.

In order to get the greatest benefit from the EEC in the development of our land it is important that all the essential programmes should be fully prepared. For the life of me, I cannot see how with the present set-up, the Land Commission could hope to do the necessary work in preparing all the essential plans. I hope the Minister will employ all the extra staff necessary to ensure we do not neglect in the slightest degree the possibility of obtaining the maximum grants for development. The Minister referred to mountain areas and to the possibility of having money made available to improve land in such areas. He will have the full co-operation of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and I hope he will get down to work immediately so that we will not be coming back here later making excuses because we have not availed to the full of EEC funds.

The Minister will have the full support of everyone in this House in ensuring that our land is fully utilised for the benefit of the community. I wish the Minister well in his work and I compliment his staff. The Land Commission staff are very often the subject of bitter criticism. Some of us in public life have been fairly critical of their work from time to time but when we meet the officials and have closer contact with them, we discover the problems they have to face and we realise what a tough job they have to do. They have my sympathy. It is impossible to please everybody. I certainly would not like to be in their shoes. Re-arrangement is going on at the moment near my own village and I doubt if the Lord Himself could satisfy everybody. It is just impossible.

Mr. Malone

On the occasion of the introduction of the Estimate for the Department of Lands the Minister's predecessor described himself on two occasions as being redundant. I do not think anybody here would wish that the new Minister would be declared redundant because, after agriculture, his is probably one of the most important Ministries in the Government. It is a Ministry which is not always seen in its best light. I hope when the Minister finds his feet he will be able to make a great many changes in his Department and I should like now to take this opportunity of pointing out where those changes should be made.

It was natural to expect that this year the EEC would feature prominently in this debate, but I think somebody should take a message across to Merrion Street to let the Land Commission know we are in the EEC. If we are to be able to avail of the opportunities membership of the EEC should bring to us, the amount of land which the Land Commission hold should be allocated immediately. If the Land Commission continue at the speed at which they now allocate land, all our opportunities in the EEC will have passed before the land is allocated.

I was very pleased to note that the Minister intends to recruit more inspectors with a view to speeding up land division. It is beyond my understanding why it takes so long from the time of acquisition to allocate a holding. It may be useless making comparisons, but if one takes the matter of subdivision one finds the process getting through quite quickly. In the matter of division, however, inspectors go out to farms year after year and the people in the vicinity say when they see them coming: "The farm will be divided this year". Of course the inspector is only going to the local auctioneer to ask him to let the holding for another year. This causes so much frustration among smallholders that they are inclined to give up the ghost, to give their small holdings to auctioneers to sell and to take jobs in factories, and if they cannot get them, to take the boat. The Minister must look into the question of speedy allocation of land very carefully because at the moment people expecting allocations of land are giving up the ghost and are vacating their small holdings. This means further denuding of the countryside.

At this point I should refer to the people who are advocating that farmers be taxed. If the people who advocate this would look around they would see that the number of farmers who would come into the tax net would be very small indeed. Most smallholders are dependent on their few acres. They are not even in the category of part-time farmers who spend their free periods working in factories. It is on their few acres that they depend solely to eke out an existence.

Against this background the Land Commission continue to hold a huge bank of land for years on end. I might say that a lot of this land is not even paid for. Solicitors were mentioned as being bugbears in the matter of land registry. I know the Land Commission cannot always be blamed for not paying for holdings because sometimes the solicitors do not do their end of the job, but if a solicitor holds up the transfer of the title deed for too long the holding should be returned to its previous owner by the Land Commission. I know of a case where the holding has been so long in the hands of the Land Commission because the solicitors have not done their job, that the owner, when he gets paid, will receive a price which is not only unrealistic but which will be an insult. Indeed, he will probably be paid in land bonds. In the meantime, the Land Commission are letting that land and out of that letting the man who owned it will not get sixpence a year. It is a disgraceful procedure. In another case very close to my home, three ladies were waiting on payment for their holdings and it was only with the greatest difficulty that they got paid, to such an extent that they thought the money had been eaten up in some legal process or other and they had resigned themselves to not getting anything.

The Minister and his predecessor have spoken here about the desirability of people of a certain age relinquishing their holdings, giving it to the Land Commission and taking pensions. I wonder how many people would accept the paltry few pounds offered to them as compensation for giving away what has been to them their homes all their lives. Admittedly, they are not being asked to leave their homes: they are being asked to give up the land so that somebody else may work it. I am in agreement with that principle only if the compensation is adequate. I suppose the greatest right a man has is to own property. I agree that a person also has a responsibility to see that land is properly worked and if he is not able to do so he should pass it on to others who can work it.

I mentioned briefly the question of subdivision and the speed with which it is carried out. However, there is a tendency to subdivide below the economic level and I make a suggestion which, although devaluing a holding further would safeguard certain people. It is that where an uneconomic rearrangement was made, the holdings would not qualify for additional land in the future. As I have said, that might devalue the holdings but it would safeguard many people in the future from having to make land available to build up the earlier rearranged holdings to an economic standard.

The letting of land held by the Land Commission is a bone of contention among many people, particularly among smallholders in the vicinity of an acquired farm. The system being operated has led to the birth of the Land League. Nobody can blame smallholders for complaining when certain holdings of land are being let, perhaps comprising between 50 acres and 200 acres, when such farms, no matter what their size are let by auction as single lots. No smallholder can hope to compete against the man with the cheque book. In my own county I know of a pocket of land comprising ten or 12 acres which has yet to be allocated. Living in the vicinity of this land are about five smallholders each of whom would qualify for the land and who would be ideal tenants. However, the Land Commission have not yet decided on allocating the land to anybody and on Monday next it will be auctioned as meadow. It is very unfair that agreement was not reached with the adjoining smallholders in regard to this meadow so that they might have extra bales of hay with which to feed their cattle in the coming winter. Instead, it will probably go to an outsider if any such person should happen to outbid the locals. This illustrates one of the tragedies of the system operated by the Land Commission in regard to the letting of land.

Of course, the farmer is entitled to the best possible price whether in respect of the sale or of the letting of land and the Land Commission, as the holders of the land in trust, are entitled to their fair share but the benefit goes ultimately to the local smallholders on whose behalf the Land Commission hold land until such time as it is allocated.

The one-mile limit is used as an excuse for not giving land to some people. However, that regulation is not sacrosanct because it has been breached in the past. Because of the regulation, many capable farmers have been denied the opportunity of an enlarged holding. I have known of cases where farmers lived only one mile as the crow flies from land that was being allocated but who were a distance of, perhaps 1½ miles away by road and, therefore, were excluded. If there are not sufficient smallholders within the mile limit, people are brought in from outside but this is galling for local people who are trying to improve their standards of living.

There is also the policy whereby a landless man will not qualify for land that is being allocated. Every Deputy will know of many excellent farmers' sons who live on the family farm in the hope that some day they will have holdings of their own but, unfortunately, in many cases they will not achieve their ambition because of the regulation which excludes landless men from qualifying for allocations. They also have the problem of not being able to borrow enough money with which to buy land. If the Land Commission were to become engaged in the provision of capital for this purpose, they would be doing a very good day's work; otherwise many of those young men will be lost to Irish agriculture.

I hope that the Minister for Finance will take some action in regard to death duties because, very often, when a parent dies, the young men of the family have to utilise whatever few pounds they happen to have so that they can save the farm. This is a situation that one would not find in any other country in the world.

I hope that the Minister will consider the few points I have made and that when he is introducing his Estimate next year he will be able to indicate to us that he has given his Department a facelift. I hope, also, that at that time he will be able to tell us that all available land has been allocated and that all the other changes that are necessary will either have taken place or will be in the course of taking place.

Mr. J. Gibbons

First, I extend to the Minister the customary good wishes for his term of office. This Estimate is one that evokes contributions from many rural Deputies and rightly so. This reflects the concern of all of us for the maintenance on the land of Ireland of as many people as the land can maintain in decent comfort. The standards that apply in determining what constitutes decent comfort have changed considerably, even during my time. In the early days of the State it was considered that farms of 20 or 25 acres would not be sufficient in some cases to provide a decent living for a man and his family. That is the case yet and will always remain the position although there are certain specialists who can extract a good living from a small holding but, by and large, the present policy of the Land Commission of giving farms of 45 acres would need to have a large degree of flexibility because we must bear in mind that with the increase in industrialisation, with the mechanisation of farming and because of the well-established drop in the proportion of the people who are engaged in farming in recent years, the size of the holding occupied by the people who remained should be somewhat bigger. The standards that were acceptable to our fathers and the standards that were acceptable even 15 or 20 years ago are not acceptable to the young men in rural Ireland today and it is well to recognise that.

The Land Commission have been operating in a rut. I do not mean that in a derogatory sense, but they have a standard practice which they have been applying since their establishment all those decades ago and it is generally true to say that during much of that period farming was a depressed industry. It was difficult to make farming profitable. In that particular respect there has been a revolution. With our entry into the EEC it is now possible for us, for the first time, to sell all the farm produce that we can produce and sell it at a guaranteed price. This is a situation that we have never known before. We have broken out of the British stranglehold at long last. This raises questions for the Land Commission and for their function as people who regulate the tenure of land. I speak with some trepidation on this subject because I happen to be a farmer. I think the present Government are at a disadvantage in that no member of that Government, as far as I know, is, in the ordinary understood sense of the word, a farmer. They are, therefore, somewhat at a disadvantage in keeping themselves au fait with the feeling of the country or trying to realise what farming attitudes are to land problems.

With our tradition of the land war and the long and bitter fight that we who come from the land had to wage for the possession of our land, it is very difficult to ask us to contemplate any system of tenure except outright ownership but I should like the Minister, when he is replying to this debate, to let us have the benefit of his opinion on a system that obtains pretty well throughout the EEC, in every country except our own—a system of long leases. There are many young men struggling in farming today who can never hope to be owners, can never hope to be farmers in out sense of the word, simply because the price of land is such that they cannot ever hope to buy land. The previous speaker referred to the Land Commission rule which, in my experience anyway, is very rigidly enforced, the rule that prevents the giving of Land Commission land to people who are described rather inaccurately and very heartlessly as landless men. If the Minister is introducing changes I would recommend that he should introduce some flexibility in this. It is not sufficient when you are dealing with people, when you are dealing with men, to say: "You are a landless man and, therefore, you get no land" without any further argument or discussion.

As we all know, within that general category of landless men there are some people who would be potentially farmers of the very best kind. I suppose every rural Deputy knows a few personally, men who by one means or another, by the use of conacre especially, build themselves up. If they are tillage men they build up into machinery and if they are stock men they build up herds of cattle and flocks of sheep. Still in the eyes of the Land Commission they cannot and will not be considered for the allocation of land. I realise the reasons the Land Commission introduced this rule. I realise the pressing urgency there is on the Land Commission to relieve what is called congestion. At the same time, I think nothing justifies something that is unjust in itself and I believe that this is. In the matter of selection of allottees for land, I believe potential allottees should definitely be put through the hoop. Their potential, their age, their marriage status, their intelligence, their ability to work, all these things should be determined as they used to be in Holland when polder land, newly reclaimed from the sea, was being allocated. We must really face up to the fact that poverty in itself alone ought not to be the sole determining factor in deciding who will be allotted land. Since land and the products of the land are now so valuable, the person should get land who is most likely to make the best use of it and very definitely preference should be given to the younger men and preference, of course, should be given to men who are married.

The question of land in the possession of the Land Commission being let year by year was raised. It always is. I would suggest to the Minister that he consider only letting this land to farmers who would be potential allottees in the locality. He probably knows very well himself, since he represents a rural constituency, that this is a constant source of grievance. At an ordinary open auction the person who is least likely to require the land for his living is most likely to get it because he can pay more than the other people can. It is as simple and as brutal as that. This, again, seems to me to be somewhat unfair and since it is, I would suggest to the Minister that he think about it —only allot Land Commission land to people who would normally qualify for allotments of land from him. This would help to rule out the longstanding grievance of small, uneconomic holders against people who have financial resources at their command and who can outbid them at auctions.

I raised the question of the purchase of land by people from outside farming here some time ago by way of Parliamentary question. This is a pressing problem and one on which some action should be taken. I am not talking in particular about foreigners. I am talking about people in our own country who have large sums of money at their disposal and are from outside the farming industry. For the purpose of investment, of dealing in a more satisfactory way with the Revenue Commissioners, such people buy farm land. Every acre of farmland that people with wealth, obtained in other ways, purchase they drive some young farmer out of the business, and possibly out of the country.

I invite criticism of this statement. I believe it is true and the procedure is unjust. Since it is unjust I urge the Minister to examine it. I recognise it is a difficult question and that it may well involve constitutional problems. It is, however, a pressing need. If our purpose is to maintain our rural people on the land we cannot sell our land resources to people outside farming, Irish nationals or anybody else. I believe that we should introduce stipulations such as exist in other countries, for example, France, in the matter of the purchase of land. In other countries it is necessary for a person buying land to show that he has worked on the land for a stated period and that he is intent on making his living solely from farming. This is what farmland is for. We are well endowed in this country with farmland and we are obliged to make the best use of it. Surely its sale to wealthy people as a means of either maintaining or expanding their wealth is not the best way to use our land.

I should also like to recommend to the Minister for consideration the question of designating land as development land. Every rural Deputy has had experience of land coming on the market, especially small portions of land.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): One does not need to be a rural Deputy to be aware of that.

Mr. J. Gibbons

We have all heard about it then. When land comes on the market in an area where there are people who do not have sufficient land to give themselves a living it usually happens that another farmer, with sufficient land and probably more money, buys that portion of land. The other farmers are then allowed to remain in their uneconomic situation. Looking at this from a purely moral point of view, I do not think that the big farmer has a moral right to deprive his neighbours of a living. Looking at it from the Government's point of view, I think there is an obligation on them to seek a land policy that would prevent this type of undesirable purchase of land. I am not saying that farmers who have bigger farms should be prevented totally from buying land. That would be a foolish, a false and short-sighted policy in the long run. However, they should be prevented from injuring their neighbours, as frequently happens in rural Ireland.

I do not accept that it is possible to determine some notional number of acres and say that no man shall own any more land than that. This would introduce an unnecessary restriction on farm development. What is necessary is the securing of the position where one farmer, because he is wealthy, cannot injure the livelihood, and prospects, of his neighbours.

The question of succession is another hardy annual. Dr. Scully of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries carried out a very brilliant research into farming in the west of Ireland recently and one of the alarming things about his findings was the astonishingly high age of farmers, and the astonishingly large number of unmarried farmers. This is the hangover of decades of the old British dictated system of market quotas which strangled any hope we had of real farm development. It imposed on farmers on small acreage, whether they liked it or not, and, no matter how good they were, a low standard of living. Since it did no girl was willing to marry poverty. That is the cruel fact of the matter.

This can now be altered because of our new marketing situation. On the question of the passage of land from father to son, I would hope that we would never see the day that this traditional passage of land would be restricted, or inhibited, by the action of this or any other Government. We are all familiar with the problem of the reluctance of the old farmer to hand over the land to his son. In my experience I believe that the working life of a farmer is in the region of 30 years. They are safe in waiting until they are 48. Thereafter many of them are not able to stand up to the hard physical work of farming and they should be contemplating the passage of their land to their sons or heirs.

There is another, and more pressing need, for this. It is unfair, and unjust, for the young men to sit in expectation of the demise of the old farmer which might not take place until the heir is lapsing into senility. This is totally unsatisfactory and it is a very serious social problem of the rural Irish. There is an obligation on us to think about it and see what can be done to improve the situation. The reason that old farmers are reluctant to relinquish their farms is that they are worried about their own security. There is also the difficulty because of the affection of all farmers for their land. This is a formidable quantity, difficult in definition, but we have all seen it in action. Farmers, even though they are living in poverty, have refused to leave that poverty if it involved relinquishing the ownership of their land.

Now that we are in the EEC we will have better encouragement than we have had by way of pensions to the older men to relinquish possession of land. There may be some intermediate steps that would ease the shock to the older man of being suddenly deprived of his land and finding himself in the condition of being a landless man overnight. Both the old and the young man are entitled to some measure of security. There must certainly be a compromise on the part of the older man in order to get the land into the young and vigorous hands of his successor: it is necessary that ownership should pass from one to the other. Possibly guaranteeing to the older man the right of residence and provision of a second house and payment of a pension sufficient to maintain an elderly man and his wife in comfort would be a help but nothing less would be acceptable. Participation of the younger man in partial payment of his parents might be arranged in a legal way. In any case, we know the problem is there and is not easy to overcome. Many wise and diligent men— some in the Land Commission—have recognised this problem for a long time and tried to cope with it but there is now an urgency that never before existed. There is an imbalance in the age and marital status of the people of rural Ireland, especially in Connaught, which bodes ill for the province's future unless very radical measures are taken quickly. I urge the Minister to consider this as a matter of urgency.

I want to praise the Forestry Division for their work in the provision of forest parks. I think nobody would object to my mentioning the name of the late Henry Grey of the Forestry Division whose idea, I think, it was originally. Some of the State forest parks are a credit to the Forestry Division and the country generally. It is notable that practically all our timber is commercial timber. The reasons for that are very plain and pressing. We needed our forests to pay as quickly as possible. Many of them are paying now, providing pulp wood and other commercial timbers. I think we should now consider providing some trees for purely ornamental purposes particularly deciduous trees such as beech, ash, sycamore and the indigenous tree of Killarney—and many other places— the oak.

The Forestry Division, in their time, committed a few sins and in my opinion one of their worst was in relation to Torc mountain, Killarney. Originally, it was clothed in oak trees. They were removed and replaced by coniferous trees. Norway, spruce, contorta and so on. They died for some reason and Torc mountain —unless it has changed in the past couple of years; I have not been there —was injured very severely, temporarily of course, by the operations of the Forestry Division. Killarney is a very special case and the clothing of Torc mountain and other mountains in trees should get particular attention. My own view is that the indigenous trees should be planted, encouraged and developed. Possibly mine is a layman's view.

Another problem which is not now within the ambit of the Forestry Division arises in many towns and villages throughout the country where there are stands of lovely trees. Naturally, I know those in my own constituency better than others, such as the village of Castlecomer which has a very stately row of lime trees on each side of the road, or the village of Freshford with its chestnuts, or the very well-known village of Inistioge and, in Kilkenny city itself, there are some lovely wooded roadways. I think—I am not certain— that these trees fall to be attended to by local authorities. There are lime trees in the village of Ballylinan, Laois, that have been "pollarded" by somebody; they have been horribly mutilated and will never be the same again. This should not happen. There are many people in the Forestry Division who are expert in the maintenance of trees, the pruning, care and replacement of them and their advice should be available to local authorities. I am certain that if the local authorities sought it they would get it but this has not happened. A couple of the lime trees in Castlecomer have died. I believe this was because tarmacadum was laid surrounding the roots and they were unable to respire properly. They have not been replaced.

These trees are very important to us in rural Ireland. There should be a way to maintain them, to replace them when they are past maturity and keep our towns and villages as lovely as some of them are.

Some of the State forest parks are in areas where, like Gougane Barra, the whole area should be included for special consideration as a national park area. This idea was current a few years ago when the Office of Public Works set up their parks section. It would be natural and good evolution if that excellent service and the Forestry personnel together could designate certain large parts of the country as national park areas where special attention would be paid to the erection of buildings and the provision of trees and amenities. I would ask the Minister to consider this, because we do happen to have, in my opinion anyway, the only remaining unspoilt countryside in western Europe today and we ought to recognise it and keep it, certainly for tourists, although I would prefer to think that we would be motivated in the preservation of our own rural heritage for ourselves and for our children rather than for anybody else. We should recognise the marvellous beauty of our countryside and protect it for ourselves.

Very serious inroads are being made into the beauty of our countryside. It has been mentioned with increasing frequency: the pollution of our waterway, the pollution of the air in certain places and the erection of undesirable and ugly buildings in the wrong place. This is controlled to some extent, but not sufficiently, by the planning legislation. There are large parts of this country that should get special treatment. I am sure the Ceann Comhairle himself will know the area from Clogheen over "The Vee" into Lismore and Cappoquin. This is very special and is only one of thousands of places in this country, but to treat it as just anywhere is to fail to recognise its great importance to us and to our future.

I wish to give briefly to the Minister some highly personal opinions about wildlife. I am concerned about the disappearance of certain species from the countryside. When I was young, at the cutting of the corn, it was more usual than not to start several coveys of partridges from every field of barley. I have not seen a partridge for 20 years. I do not know what has happened to them, but they are gone. At the same time, we have the most astonishing proliferation of wood pigeons and if you consider a little more you will discover that sparrow hawks have almost totally disappeared, as have some owls as well. I believe that the disappearance of the hawks is directly responsible for the proliferation of wood pigeons and they are very predatory and damaging birds when they exist in the numbers in which they now exist. Incidentally it must be 20 or 25 years since I heard a corncrake. I do not know what has become of these either.

I suspect that in the case of hawks it may well be that they were killed because of their well-known tendency to eat the livers of their prey, usually pigeons. I am told by men who know that mercury dressings of seed ingested by pigeons, in the springtime, while it does not actually poison the pigeons, is concentrated in the birds' livers. Since the hawk, being a predatory bird, eats the livers of its prey first, it gets a lethal dose of organic mercury or, if not lethal, it may induce sterility in the hawks' eggs. At any rate, the balance itself is severely upset. I think magpies did operate as a balancer to prevent the proliferation of wood pigeons and they, too, have been diminishing somewhat in numbers.

We are living in a time when there is very extensive use made of all kinds of organic chemicals whose many possible effects on our ecology are only partly understood, if they are understood at all. There are some tragic examples of the shocking effects of the use of organic chemicals without exhaustive trials being made as to their safety for humans and animal and birdlife as well.

I should be grateful if the Minister would consider what I have said as a countryman. The balance of nature, without which nature will not function properly, has been upset by the ignorant intrusion of men with their chemicals into something that was functioning properly before. I know that what the Minister or anyone else can do about this is sharply limited, but at the same time, when we are aware of the destruction of some of our species, I think we shall seek more diligently for the solution of the problem. I want to repeat my good wishes to the Minister.

Mr. Leonard

I should like to wish the Minister well in his office. Coming as he does from my own county— at least originally he came from it— he would be very familiar with the problems of that area, and down the years the Department of Lands, through the Land Commission, have endeavoured to bring farm sizes to an economic level. It was a laudable, though sometimes a slow process.

The figure of 76,000 acres is mentioned in the Minister's speech as being held by the Land Commission, and according to replies to parliamentary questions the Land Commission seem to hold a considerable amount of land in some counties. When this is compared with a mere 893 acres—the figure at the 1st April —which the Land Commission hold in Monaghan, it shows a great imbalance. While one must admit that there are not as many large estates in Monaghan as in other counties, from time to time there are still large quantities of land being offered for sale in the county and there are times when the buyers of those farms offered are men who have many other interests and who are not depending at all on farming as a means of livelihood. There are other cases of farmers who already have adequate farms buying other farms. They buy these more as a speculation than anything else. It has been my experience that some of the most progressive and efficient farmers are those who obtained their farms from the Land Commission, having given up to the Land Commission small holdings, or who had additions made to their existing holdings.

There is a great deal of talk about the Mansholt Plan. That plan aims at making farms an economic size and, in order to achieve that, pressure has to be brought to bear on small farmers. From an economist's point of view that may well be the correct approach but one should always remember that when one is dealing with land one is also dealing with people. The farming tradition goes back many hundreds of years and people with a farming background do not usually yield very readily to pressure. That is true not alone of Ireland but of other EEC countries, as the policy planners in Europe may have found out by this time. In no country does the small farmer wish to be pushed off the land and this is something of which economic planners should take note. Economic necessity can be pleaded for this action, but we should never forget that one of the main achievements of the Land League was fixture of tenure and we must, therefore, not allow planners to force our farming stock off the land.

The Minister and the Government should investigate what can be done in rural areas so that the people will stay on the land and get a decent living. Part-time farming is a solution. It has already been forced on many small farmers in my area. Most of them have to bolster their earnings from farming by off-farming employment of one kind or another. Our policy must be to formulate a plan which will enable people to stay on the land and yet provide them with the standards, the amenities and the facilities available to those in purely industrial employment. It may be argued that, while this is an ideal solution, it is not a feasible one. I do not accept that. We can have the solution if we are willing to work for it. I believe this solution has substantial support at local level from many members of the EEC countries. The Government will have to take steps to encourage the establishment of suitable seasonal or part-time employment for small farmers either through the medium of co-operatives or through private enterprise. This would result in limiting the growth of large towns and it would make possible more worthwhile village development. It has been proved that the sons of small farmers are very adaptable and make excellent workers.

The area under forestry in the Monaghan-Cavan area is approximately 16,000 acres. As the Minister is aware, employment is very, very badly needed in these areas, especially along the border areas of these two counties. The forestry acreage on the northern side of the Border is very substantial in both County Tyrone and County Fermanagh. There is a very substantial pool of timber there. It may be wishful thinking on my part, but I would suggest to the Minister that he should endeavour to get some agreement with the Northern Ireland forestry authorities for the provision of some timber-based industry in the area to which I referred. A great deal of this timber will be reaching maturity in a few years' time and an industry on the lines I suggest would provide badly needed employment along the Border in an area in which there is at the moment very little employment. It could also be a fruitful field of co-operation for both sides.

Across the Border from Monaghan there is a very fine picnic area provided for the use of the local people and tourists. I do not know if there are such areas in other forests. I do not think there are any in north Monaghan. Such a facility would be a tremendous amenity. Picnic areas could be provided in some of the forests adjacent to Castleblayney, Castleshane, Rossmore, Knockatallen and Derrygurry. These would be a valuable amenity. People could enjoy themselves in picturesque surroundings. The forests are the property of the nation and as many as possible, particularly children, should have every opportunity of enjoying the beauty of these forests. I appeal to the Minister, if possible to set up picnic areas in those forests convenient to built-up areas such as Monaghan town which has a fair-sized population. It would be of great advantage along the Border area if there was one similar to that at Favour Isle. Incidentally, that picnic area is well signposted for those wishing to avail of this amenity.

An employee of the Forestry and Wildlife Section in Monaghan for 25 years—before that he had served in the Army—resides with his wife and a large family in a house belonging to the Department. The house has no water laid on and no toilet facilities of any description. The man made an application to purchase the house. The Department would not agree to the sale, but informed him that if he provided those facilities at his own expense they would have no objection. He will be retiring in a few years and will probably have to vacate the house. I do not think it would be advisable for him to provide these facilities. The Department should provide these facilities if they are not willing to sell the house. Because of its situation, the Department might not wish to dispose of the property.

I welcome the additional investment which the Land Commission have for the purchase of land. I hope the Minister will act favourably towards my county in securing more land. As I mentioned earlier, the pool of land held in County Monaghan, 893 acres, is very small. I hope the Minister will use his good offices to provide as much money as possible for that county to build up more economic holdings. A number of years ago land had not the same value or meaning as it has today. People were glad to get some of it cleared up for planting trees. Since then, some of this land has been declared a pilot area and terrific progress has been made. Viewing some of these forests now, one cannot help thinking that with drainage systems, liming and fertilising, that land would be excellent for grazing—not tillage, because it would be of a very wet variety. It is a pity to see trees growing where bullocks could be grazing.

I wish the Minister well in his office. The Land Commission have not a very big acreage in County Monaghan, but their officers are very helpful and very fair in allocating land. They get a lot of brickbats and criticism, but I think if they do their job well they should get credit for it.

Mr. Crinion

Land is one topic which has caused heated argument in the past few hundred years. Anything dealing with land is very controversial. Anybody dealing with land, such as the Land Commission, and trying to bring farms up to economic holdings, is bound to be criticised. By and large, the Land Commission are doing a reasonable job. They are curtailed in some ways, pricewise, and I feel a serious look will have to be taken at their position because of that. The price of land has gone up considerably in Dublin, Meath, Kildare and to some extent in Wicklow. The Land Commission cannot pay these high prices. In Duleek they bought dear land—dear by ordinary standards—for allocation and paid £540 to £550 per acre for it at the end of last year. They balanced that with cheaper land and made it into a pool price. They bought another lot at Athboy, which cost about £570 per acre and they hope it can be pooled with a cheaper lot. If they have to buy the land at £570 an acre it means the land will cost them not much less than that amount. The Land Commission inspectors have to make inquiries in the area to see if farmers can pay that price for the extra land.

What is happening now in Dublin, Meath and Kildare could spread throughout the country. There are pockets of land in part of the country making just as high a price. I know a farmer, who is considered to have an uneconomic holding, who bought a few acres to bring his holding up to standard a few months ago. Since then he bought another bit of land, 17 acres, and paid £1,000 an acre for it. That was a very high price but the land in the good areas of Meath is making from £500 to £1,000 an acre in extreme cases. Even at the lower level of £500 it would be hard to buy land at the moment. Such land is too dear to give to the holder of an uneconomic farm. The Land Commission could buy land with Land Bonds or some of the cash which is available to them, but the people might not be able to take it. If that happens there will be trouble straightaway. There could be a strike similar to the rent strike of the local authority housedwellers. That should not be allowed to happen.

If land is available at £50 or £60 an acre, people would not be able to afford to pay for ten or 20 acres, especially if they did not get the expected high returns from the extra acreage. A small group of people could start objecting to the high prices. I do not want to give such ideas to the people, but the Land Commission should take note of what could happen. The only alternative is to use the EEC funds for the relief of underdeveloped areas. I think there is £40 million available at low interest rates. That money could be used to bring interest rates down to 4 per cent or 5 per cent. Rents would be more realistic and farmers would be able to meet them.

The Government should consider methods of acquiring land and making it available at reasonable prices. Nobody wants the land for nothing or at a very cheap rate. The figure of £20 or £30 which is being asked is high, but some farmers are glad to get land at that price. I have seen farms bought at high prices this year, and I wonder what the rents will be like in two or three years time when the land is allocated. In the Meath constituency which I represent, only two or three farms have been bought since the beginning of the year. The pool of land will run out. There are many uneconomic holdings in Meath. The big ranches which were in that county some years ago no longer exist. They have all been sold. In many cases the Land Commission have acquired them. The Land Commission made a survey of uneconomic holdings a few years ago. It showed that 60 per cent of the farms in County Meath were under 40 statute acres.

There is much to be done in County Meath. Many of the Land Commission farms are uneconomic and there are a large number of small farms which already existed before the Land Commission allocated land. The price factor is responsible for the shortage of land. What is happening in Meath will happen in the rest of Ireland. The nearer one gets to Dublin the higher is the price of land. The Land Commission cannot operate in County Dublin now. They cannot buy. They have no land to give out there. Kildare is in a similar position. I should like to see the Land Commission in a position similar to that in which they were ten years ago when they were practically the best buyers of land in the country. At that stage they could reasonably expect to get every second or third farm which was offered for sale. Many farms were made available to the Land Commission even after they were sold.

Land prices are inflated. The Land Commission have not been able to cope with the position. A new Government policy will have to be implemented. If the Land Commission could buy every second or third farm which comes on the market they would be able to meet their requirements. I would not like to see the Land Commission competing against a small farmer who, through his own efforts and through money borrowed from the ACC or the bank, was trying to buy a farm adjacent to his own. It is safe to say that the Land Commission would not interfere in such a case. They usually take precautions to see that they are not taking land in which small farmers in an area have a particular interest.

Many farms are being sold all over the country. If the Land Commission could buy them at reasonable prices and allocate them at reasonable rents they could solve the problems which exist. With so many uneconomic farms it is hard to persuade farmers' sons to start farming on their own.

It should be possible to leave five or ten farms over every year for farmers' sons who get the top places in the farm apprenticeship scheme. This would mean that young men who have an interest in farming but who have no chance of getting farms of their own would be able to start on their own. It is impossible for such young men to get farms of their own unless their fathers have a considerable amount of money to give them. I am thinking particularly of sons of agricultural workers. These men have worked on land all their lives and, while they have no chance of getting farms of their own, they would like to see their sons getting farms.

The Land Commission sometimes hold over land too long. It may be five or six years after they take it over before they allocate it. Sometimes there is a reason for this but I find if there is a change of plan the scheme is delayed for a few years. I realise that in the allocation of land you must have patience and be sure that you are getting the right people for it. However, the Land Commission should be able to allocate land within a year or 18 months. If they have it for three years they should be required to put before both Houses of the Oireachtas the reasons for the delay. This would be an incentive to them to allocate land quickly.

It is often known locally that the Land Commission have a particular farm. They may have bought it but until the title is right and the deeds are handed over they do not actually own it. It is very welcome to see so much money being allocated this year for the purchase of land. It was not publicised enough during the past year that land bonds were saleable on the stock exchange and that cash could be obtained for them. Many people throughout the country felt they could not sell them.

When allocating land I feel it is a pity that some of the houses on the land are held so long before they are disposed of. The Minister recently mentioned the Noone estate, Billinakill, Enfield. When I was first elected to the Dáil in 1961 the owner was living in that house but within six months the land was sold to the Land Commission. That house, which was built in the 1950s is now derelict. It should not have been left vacant for such a long period. The Land Commission, shortly after taking over land, should be able to decide what is to happen to any house on it. Such a house should be sold immediately and not allowed to go derelict. I know the estate I mentioned is an exceptional one. The Land Commission changed their mind twice on this. At first it was to be a pig fattening unit but that idea fell through after a few years. Most of the land was divided and then the idea of a group farm came up. Now I believe there is a further change. In rural areas a vacant house is very welcome and you can get a fair price for it, even if it is very small. In my constituency it is certainly possible to get a good price for an empty house on an estate. This will help to bring down the price of the farm. You only have to sell the house with maybe a garden or a half acre at the most. If it is a bigger house you have to take in perhaps an acre or two, or whatever ground is around it. There is a ready market even for big houses. The Land Commission should sell off the houses reasonably quickly after they acquire the estates. At one time the staff working on the estate had to wait until it was divided but, in the past couple of years, whatever compensation was to be given to the staff was given in a very short period.

Group farming which is in its infancy has not been very successful. I am glad that the Department are persevering with this scheme. What is being done at the Ballinakill estate near Enfield may possibly be a solution. The Minister mentioned that there are a few other areas which will be developed along the lines that the people apply for the scheme. They have to sell the idea to the Land Commission as against the Land Commission coming to them and asking them to take part in a group farming scheme. Psychologically speaking if the people apply themselves there is a better chance of the scheme working. The expertise of the people working this scheme in the Department should be available to farmers who would like to join a scheme. There is a great potential for this idea.

We have all seen enough machinery on one farm to be used on two or three farms. It would be better to pool the machinery. The young men feel they are tied on Saturday and Sunday. If they go to the seaside, at 5 o'clock they have to go back home to milk. If I have put on my good clothes to go some place, when I come back I am not in the humour to change into my old working clothes. I can imagine what it is like for the father of a family who is at the seaside or at a football match and has to go home, change his clothes and milk the cows. If two or three of them could group together they could make arrangements for the weekend.

There is a need for group farming. The number of group farming schemes throughout the country at present could be counted on the fingers of my two hands. The younger people want to be free for an odd week-end or an odd Sunday. There is no reason why this scheme should not work. People say that it is too hard to get farmers to agree but they are as capable of agreeing as anybody else. People can join together to start a business. In companies big numbers are involved and work together perfectly. The same applies to factories. If this can work in industry and commerce I do not see why it cannot work in agriculture. If the formula can be found it can be worked. Quite a number of farmers are prepared to work it. The five-day cow has not been bred yet. All stock has to be looked after over the weekend as well as during the week. I note that the Land Commission practically achieved their target in forestry of 25,000 acres last year.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.