Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 7 Nov 1974

Vol. 275 No. 8

Vote 35: Lands (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a sum not exceeding £5,357,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the period commencing on the 1st day of April, 1974, and ending on the 31st day of December, 1974, for the salaries and expenses of the Offices of the Minister for Lands and of the Irish Land Commission, including a grant-in-aid.

—(Minister for Lands).

Mr. McLaughlin

Since I spoke last week I have been thinking back on the Lands Estimates and there are a few points to which I should like to refer. One is the fact that in many areas lands are owned or are taken over by the Land Commission. Now that the question of fuel is of such importance because of its rising costs, I would suggest to the Minister that the Land Commission be asked to speed up the distribution of bogland to the many local farmers interested in its acquisition. Occasionally we public representatives are approached on this subject and the Land Commission will then get going. But as we all know it takes a long time to get the right applicant and have proper roads made leading into these bogs. This is something which should be given serious consideration now because the present cost of fuel puts it almost out of the reach of many people in rural areas if they have not their own bogland.

We have heard about the priority to be given to the farmer with a development plan for land surrendered under the retirement scheme. This has been a great cause of worry to many small farmers in western areas. The Minister dealt very fully with this in his opening speech. I have no doubt that other Deputies from western areas will have noted with satisfaction that the traditional land settlement programme of the Land Commission will be continued and that small farmers will continue to be eligible for lands acquired by the Land Commission in this way.

One point occurred to me since I spoke last week, that is, under the retirement scheme it is not necessary for applicants to sell their lands to the Land Commission. If they wish, they can sell them or lease them to developing farmers who need additional lands. I am very pleased to note that there is a special premium under the scheme for the encouragement of long leases. The outgoer will get as a premium twice the annual lease rent up to a maximum of £3,000. I think this is a worthy imaginative incentive which will give generous remuneration to these people.

I should like to remind the Minister about the people who have moved from towns and bought land that was urgently needed by local farmers. I spoke on this matter before but the purchase of the land is still continuing. Where these matters are brought to the notice of the Minister I would ask him to try to stop these people becoming the registered owners. It may not be a popular thing to point out but there are cases where local farmers have been waiting for a number of years for land to be divided but if a retired bank manager or a doctor or anyone else purchases the land for the sake of investment that person is depriving the farmers of the opportunity of extending their holdings. When these people from the towns move into the country they purchase cattle, rear calves and generally avail of schemes that were meant for small farmers. This has contributed in no small way to the present situation where we have a surplus of stock.

I wish to congratulate the Minister on the work he is doing. For the following three reasons, it should be easier for the Land Commission to carry out their work more quickly. First, there is the matter of the amount of money allocated for the purchase of land by cash. One of the problems in the past has been that people were not interested in selling land to the Land Commission because they were paid in land bonds—pieces of paper on which interest was paid, which might or might not be worth a considerable amount of money.

Secondly, the number of people who will offer their holdings to the Land Commission means that a considerable amount of work will be taken away from the commission because they will not have to carry out investigations and arrange for compulsory acquisition. Another step in the right direction is the increase in the number of staff in the various offices throughout the country. All of us are aware of the long delays that occurred in land division but I am convinced these three factors will speed up the development and progress of the Land Commission.

Mr. Callanan

This is a most important Estimate so far as the west is concerned. I wish to make it clear to the Minister that even if a member of my party were in his place I would say what I believe to be true.

I agree with my colleague, Deputy Hogan O'Higgins, in paying tribute to the staff of the Land Commission for their courtesy and kindness to Deputies. I am in contact with them at least three times each week and even though progress in that office may be somewhat slow I must pay tribute to the staff for their help. I should not like to have to do their work, nor should I like to be the Minister if he had power to divide land. It is very difficult to have to listen to everyone's complaints and make decisions afterwards.

I wish to compliment the Minister on the increase in staff, both indoor and outdoor. There is no use in our making pious resolutions about the division of land if the staff and the money are not available. The number of staff in the Land Commission is totally inadequate to deal with land division in the proper manner. This is an important matter if we wish to keep small farmers on the land.

The present depression has made it rather easy for the Land Commission. Before I entered public life I was interested in rural organisations, in land division and settlement. There were always people coming to me inquiring if farms could be divided and allocated to them. Unfortunately this year very many small farmers have to live on social welfare. These people are afraid that if they get ten acres of land their valuations will put them outside the scope of social welfare benefits. The initiative is not present to go ahead in their work.

I wish to compliment the Land Commission on the work they are doing with regard to the division of land. However, many small farmers would prefer that the land was not striped at the moment; instead it should be colloped so that there might be grass available for their cattle. This arrangement would not interfere with their valuations. We will not always have the state of depression that exists at the moment and, hopefully, the situation will change. The young farmers are afraid they will lose the few pounds they get in social welfare which they badly need now. If these benefits were not available there would be many angry small farmers. I am convinced we will have land hunger once again when the situation improves.

The speculators, both foreign and native, are the people who have made a lot of money. Some of them are making money in cattle at the moment, others made it by selling land near cities and towns. These people were in competition with the Land Commission. There is a danger the Land Commission might become afraid that the land would be too dear for the small farmers, that there might be a loss of incentive on the part of the small farmers. As Deputy McLaughlin has said these are the people who are responsible for putting up the price of land. They farm only for pleasure. It would be a sad day that such people would be in competition with the Land Commission or with the small farmers who would qualify as development farmers.

On the question of development farmers, when I spoke in this context last year I said that the directive in the form in which it was then could not work because in order to qualify for land one had to be deemed to be a development farmer. If the assessors were to make their judgments on the basis of the income from livestock produce at present, there would be very few farmers in the west who would qualify as development farmers. However, I note that the Land Commission are to consider now the inclusion, for qualification, of potential development farmers. I congratulate the Minister on this move but the task facing the Land Commission in this respect will not be easy. A wise bank manager, confronted by a young farmer wishing to borrow money, would judge the man's creditworthiness on his initiative and determination rather than on the size of his farm because, with initiative and determination, a man having only ten acres might have much better prospects of qualifying as a development farmer than would another man who might have 30 acres.

In its original form, the directive was useless. The improvement in it is very welcome but I would not like to be one who would have to make the decision as to who is a potential development farmer. We are not vocal enough in Brussels in relation to the various directives emanating from there.

There is available to the Land Commission a substantial amount of money for the purchase of land, some of which will be becoming available as a result of farmers availing of the retirement scheme. Regarding this scheme, it is my understanding that the EEC cover the cost of land acquired if the retiring farmer is not more than 65 years but that otherwise the State must bear the cost.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): That is correct.

Mr. Callanan

I should like to know how many people between the ages of 50 and 60 are offering their land. The vast majority of those who have approached me in regard to the retirement scheme are between the ages of 60 and 65 and some of them are more than 65. The point I am making is that while this scheme, which is an attractive one, is supposed to be the responsibility of the EEC, it is being paid for in the main by this State because most of those who retire are more than 65.

As was said here recently by Deputy Hogan O'Higgins, there is a great love of land in this country and, consequently there is a reluctance to part with land. Most of those who approached me about the retirement scheme were elderly people whose families have gone to live elsewhere.

The Minister said that never before has there been open to farmers a scheme of this nature. While that is true, neither is such a scheme available to any other section of the community at 50 years of age. Indeed, not only do other workers not retire at 50 but many of them remain at work for a few years after they reach 65. Therefore, we are asking the farmer to retire ten or 15 years earlier than we ask those in any other sector to retire. We have gone from one extreme to another. Of course, retirement is voluntary but if a farmer wishes to avail of the full benefit of the scheme he must retire at 50. I would not advise anyone to retire at that age.

The terms of the directive originally debarred a retired farmer from engaging in farming, whether by way of helping his neighbour or otherwise. That was very wrong and was condemned outright by me at the beginning. However, those conditions have been changed and I congratulate the Minister on having brought the situation to the attention of those in Brussels. The regulations, though, are rather strict in so far as relatives of the retired farmer taking over the land at the later stage are concerned. Deputy McLaughlin referred to the question of the leasing of land but it is my understanding that if a farmer wishes to avail of the retirement scheme and decides to lease his land, neither he nor anybody belonging to him can return to the farm when the lease has expired.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): That is not correct. After 12 years a man can return to farming if he wishes or he can give the farm to somebody else.

Mr. Callanan

For instance, could he give it to his son?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Yes. The only people who would be excluded from possession of the farm would be himself and his wife.

Mr. Callanan

That is fair enough. If, on the other hand, the land is not given to somebody of the farmer's choice after the 12 years, would preference regarding its allocation be given to the person who had leased the land during that period?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): That would depend on the terms of the lease negotiated by the retiring farmer and the lessee at the time the lease was drawn up.

Mr. Callanan

Surely if the lessee has been doing a good job he should be given preference to the land.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Provision for that could be made at the time of the lease being entered into.

Mr. Callanan

Therefore, the man would have no preference if there had not been an arrangement at the time of the drawing up of the lease. If the Minister is to be faced with huge numbers of applications from people who are more than 65, the cost of the retirement scheme to this nation will be great. I would like the Minister to give us some information about that because Directives 159 and 160 are very closely linked.

Deputy McLaughlin mentioned big and small farms. I should like to know if I am right in thinking that the man with the large farm does not come in under this scheme, that the farm has to be under 45 acres. A large farm of 300 acres could be very useful if it was taken over and divided among the people but for want of staff and money there is a danger that it is left there. You could get a very good response to the retirement directive but you cannot take over very large farms because they will not come within the directive.

I should like to refer again this year to the question of land bonds. This is one of the most vexed questions in land division. I asked several questions about an estate which had to be dealt with in the High Court. Prior to that the estate was to be paid for in land bonds at 9¾ per cent. The people refused to give up possession of the land. They told me that as long as they can hold on to it they will because the land bonds at the moment are worth only 60 per cent. That is downright robbery. I come up against this in Galway because I have always been asking the Land Commission to take over land. The people who have land are always up against the Deputy who wants something like that. They say to me: "You take it but you do not pay us. You only pay us in paper."

Land bonds are a lottery. They are guaranteed but once you have them your name goes into a lottery and if you are lucky enough your name comes up and you can redeem them. It is like a sweepstake. It might be 39 years before you could redeem them at par, which is no use to anybody. The question of land bonds is not a problem of this Government particularly. It has been going on for years. People get land bonds for land they hand over to the Land Commission. If a national loan is issued soon afterwards it carries a higher rate of interest. If I had money to invest, I would naturally invest it in the national loan where I could get 12½ per cent interest instead of 9¾ per cent on land bonds. A national loan carries a State guarantee and a redemption date.

I appeal to the Government to have land bonds redeemed at par after three or four years from date of issue. The Minister said last year that he would phase them out but we cannot do that because we have not got enough money to do so. Land which is bought will always have to be paid for in land bonds but if we could make them attractive people would be happier with them. We should ensure that the interest rate goes up according to the latest issue of a national loan. I know some unfortunate people whose land was taken over for land bonds and when they tried to sell them they were only offered £55 to £60 on every £100. If I go out and sell a beast for £60, I expect to get that amount of money for it and if I get a cheque for it I expect to be able to cash it for the full amount.

I believe that most of the money for implementing the new directive will have to come from this State. A large number of people in the 50 to 60 age bracket will not retire. Those who will retire will be over 65 years of age, which will leave the whole burden on the State and not on the EEC. The amount of land which the Minister told us the Land Commission have bought, and which is likely to be divided in the next few years, is only chicken feed. We know the amount of land which is in the hands of the Land Commission for years. Some of this is held up waiting for further parcels of land but a large proportion of it is held up because the Land Commission have neither the money nor the staff to divide it. The cost of fencing and laying out a farm at the moment has gone up 100 per cent. The Land Commission have to face this situation.

I hope the demand for the acquisition of land will always be there. I would not like the present depression in the farming community to continue so that the people would lose the initiative to get land and make a living on it. I do not believe we can ever have enough money to buy all the land of this country and pay cash for it. If anybody thinks this can be done, I would like to see him prove it. The present system of paying for land in land bonds is outdated and immoral and we should devise a system of paying for land with land bonds with a decent guarantee.

I know of a farm in my area which was to be given up in June, 1973. The court decided it is to be paid for in 9¾ per cent land bonds. I had several answers from the Minister in reply to questions about this farm. The last day he told me it was to be taken over on the 15th September of this year. The people have no intention of giving it up until the High Court decide on it. The Land Commission have now to get an order from the High Court to get possession of this land. I hope I have dealt with the land bond position fairly well. This is very important.

Deputy McLaughlin dealt with speculators. It is a terrible state of affairs that we should still have in this day the cheque book eviction. It also applies to the letting of land. I commend the Land Commission in my area. I pressed for this before I came to the House; I also asked for it last year and in my area the commission are doing their best to see, where they have a reasonably-sized farm of land, that the people who need the land will get it. It is a terrible state of affairs when somebody with a cheque book— who is perhaps, farming for pleasure —can outbid the local people, who should be entitled to get the land, and take it from them. The Land Commission in my area at least are using any suitable land they have.

I must also agree with Deputy McLaughlin when he said that the Land Commission were not very keen on small parcels of land. This is very foolish because there is a lot of fragmentation of land all over the country and I think the Land Commission can play a vital part by acquiring even small pieces of land—it is surprising what even ten acres can do—to eliminate fragmentation. The commission should not shy away because the amount of land available is small if it can be useful in correcting fragmentation and helping our people to live on the land.

As regards the qualifications of a man as a potential development farmer, when this idea was first introduced it was all wrong because you had to be developed: now you have to be a potential development farmer. Will the Land Commission have any guidelines other than the man himself with a farm plan? You could have a man with a farm plan on the 40 acre mark who would say that if he got ten or 12 more acres he would be all right as a development farmer. In fact, he might not be all right if he got 50 more acres while you might get another man with 25 or 30 acres who had drive and was making a great success of it and he could probably put up a plan to show that if he had 30 or 40 acres he could become a development farmer. Who will make the decision? The Land Commission, of course, but they will have a very difficult job to decide who is a potential development farmer.

I fear the transitional farmer will be in a very bad position apart from what can be done with the land that the Land Commission have at present. If the Land Commission get applications under this directive I believe the amount of money available to do anything for the transitional farmer will be very small. The amount provided is not enough. There has been an increase but if you take land at £500 an acre—and this is what reasonably good land costs—you can see how few acres this money would buy; it would only be chicken-feed. This is where I see the greatest problem. There is no use in making pious resolutions about what we will do when we have no money to do it. It has annoyed me through the years to hear programmes put forward of what the Land Commission meant to do when I knew well that the commission had neither the money nor the staff to carry out such programmes. If we were more realistic and practical—whoever might be in power—and told the people what we can do with the limited resources we have we would do better than by building up expectations that cannot be realised. It reminds me of a local authority estimate listing a great many things to be done when there is no notion of doing them because the money is not available. For instance, I do not believe we can phase out land bonds.

At present there is a very serious situation regarding bogs and I have a crib with the Land Commission because they just hand out plots of bog, collect the rent and forget about the bogs after that. Some people here may not understand how turf is taken from bogs. During the war years when bogs were being cut by county councils to supply turf, we had the best drained bogs possible and bogs, which if they were worked by ordinary people, would be no good were giving great output because they were cut in a range or straight line. I would make it compulsory that each plot holder sign an agreement that each bog be cut so many feet wide each year; either by the plot holders or by somebody to whom the plot is let. What happens with all the Land Commission bogs is something like this: say five of us get plots. One man never goes near his own plot while I go five footings into mine. Immediately, I am swamped in water.

The Land Commission never attempt to relieve this situation or give thought to the matter but it is necessary to talk of this in the present fuel crisis. The Commission should provide that a plot holder cut a certain width each year or have somebody cut it for him; that he may not second-cut it and that he must keep the bog in a range. That would mean a drain 500 yards long each year and the bog would become better and better. I know this because I worked in those bogs that were opened by the council during the Emergency. They were productive and dry but when the ordinary people take over one man cuts his portion while another does not bother with his part, which then becomes a dam holding the water. It should be Land Commission policy to insist that bogs be properly worked and maintained. I have seen the finest bogs become useless—one person cutting turf for ten years and, perhaps, nobody cutting beside him—with the result that the plot had to be abandoned because of water. This is happening all over the country.

An effort should be made during the fuel crisis by the Land Commission to let all the bogs they have and provide roads where necessary. We have a crib about the schemes from the Board of Works because the maximum grant we get for maintaining bog roads per person is not high enough. Bog roads cost more to repair. What I have been saying may appear silly to those who do not understand it but I have been looking at this happening every day and I am convinced that if the Land Commission laid down the rules about the use of these bogs they could provide perfect fuel. I trust the Land Commission will note what I have said in this regard.

Another matter which needed attention was the construction of houses and farm buildings. These left a lot to be desired. They were not up to standard at all. Again it might be no harm if a migrant—they are few and far between but there is still an odd one—were to be consulted as to the type of lay-out he would like to have on his farm. Some of the layouts in the past did not meet with modern requirements. It would be essential to have a new look at that.

I realise there is a problem in acquiring land for forestry, but this is a very important industry and a great source of employment. It should be the aim of the Land Commission to buy as much land for planting as possible.

I understand that the Land Commission are doing a good deal in regard to the dividing of commonages, but just as in building a road, one contrary person who does not want his neighbour to get on can hold up a whole scheme. I know good farmers who have got these divided commonages, manured them and brought up the production substantially. The division and fencing of these commonages is vitally important.

On the question of letting land, while I have not received many complaints in my area, there should be no encouragement of speculators. The Land Commission are like CIE; there is a social side to the Land Commission. If you were to ask an economist he would say, scrap the Land Commission, because it can never pay. However, there are certain services which must be kept going in the interests of the community whether they pay or not. I am afraid too many people in the Land Commission are looking to what is going to make the most money. When I was a young man we all had ideas as to how to keep as many people as possible on the land. I am not criticising people who retire voluntarily; the scheme is there and it is their right. What I have against the scheme is that I have seen in my area, for example, a farmer who could never get going; he got a piece of land from the Land Commission, and, the son goes out to work for the county council on the road. These are the best farmers in my area. If this scheme had been in operation, that son would not be there on the land. If we let the land go to speculators or foreigners, everything is lost. As Goldsmith said, a bold peasantry, once destroyed can never be supplied.

Due credit must be given to the Land Commission. Admittedly, mistakes were made by Governments down through the years. Too small parcels of land were given out. I come from an area that was thinly populated when I was a boy, and many people in that area were given land and made a success of it. You never hear a word about the people who are doing reasonably well with the land, but you will always hear about the man who got the land from the Land Commission and resold it or something like that. Anyway we should be very careful in implementing the scheme that we would not be encouraging a man who might have a good son coming up to leave the land. There were many wars in this country over land. When I was young and a very hot Republican, which I am today and for which I apologise to nobody, a man said to me "political independence without economic independence is no good. If a foreigner gets control of the land, your political independence is only independence on paper."

We should never again allow the land to be made into 300, 400 or 500 acre farms so that the peasant would become a workman to the big rancher. I have often said before if I had authority I would lay down a maximum of 200 acres for each farm. I would not cut down the acreage of a farm that was there already, but I would not allow the owner to buy land against anybody if he had 200 acres of good land. The people should own the land and it should not be possible for a few wealthy people to go around with a cheque book buying up the whole place and have the ordinary people working under them. While I have been critical of the Land Commission down through the years, I have stood up for them because I know the difficulties confronting them. They have done a great deal in breaking up large estates and so on. We are told how well off we were when we had the landlords. The people had a tough time and if they did not do what the boss said they were gone. We do not want to see that happening again. The Department have changed this directive a lot. When I first read it it was pushing the small man completely out. The Department have succeeded in changing it to the extent that the potential farmer can now be included. I would ask them to be very elastic as regards who is a potential development farmer. Consider the good farmer no matter how low down he is and if he is a man who is likely to go ahead give him land. The directive has been changed also in regard to the man who is at least being allowed to help his neighbour. I have constantly emphasised here that I do not believe we are making our voices heard enough in Europe but this directive has been changed. When we first got it one would imagine it was sent out by Mansholt himself. I am delighted with the change although it does not yet satisfy me. I am not saying anything I said had any influence but if it had I did not waste my time. Some people say one may as well talk to the wall but I believe if one shouts loudly enough about anything one will get somewhere. I know the Land Commission will be very elastic about this because I know the officials there and I know where their hearts lie. I go in and out to them and I know their hearts lie in bringing up the small man. I hope they will take a wide view and not be tied down by red tape on this directive. The Minister said there were a number of applications in for this scheme. I would like to know the age bracket of the applicants because I am worried that if they are over or near 65 the money will not come from the EEC but from the State.

I should like to mention again the question of the letting of land. There is a farm in my area which has not been given up and this is holding up the division of 600 or 700 acres. The case must go back again to the High Court. I know the people who own that farm consider me their deadly enemy but I am not. I am anxious that they should get a reasonable price. If we had a decent land bond system I am convinced this land would be handed over.

Mr. Carter

Hear, hear.

Mr. Callanan

I have been saying for years that it is immoral and unjust that a person should have been given a land bond that was supposed to carry 9¾ per cent interest and that at present £100 is worth £50 or £60 and there is no hope of it ever coming up. If I can get a guaranteed loan at 12½ or 13 per cent interest will I buy a land bond at 9¾ per cent? There are people who hold 7 per cent land bonds and they are worth nothing at present. This is immoral.

Mr. Carter

They have had a bad image for years.

Mr. Callanan

They are guaranteed in a sinking fund but that could be 39 years. When you get a bond your name goes into a hat like the sweepstake. If you are lucky enough to come up you may redeem it but it is just the luck of the draw. That is not the way to pay a man for anything.

Mr. Carter

Certainly not.

Mr. Callanan

When one has been all one's life on the side of the man who wants to get land and in favour of taking land from the man from whom you consider it should be taken, one must see to it that if he is entitled to £10,000 for his land he gets £10,000 and not £6,000. I would ask the Minister to take a serious view of this.

The Minister has done much since we spoke here last year by changing this directive. When this directive has been changed I do not see why we cannot be more vocal in other areas. We should stand up and say we will not accept any directive that is detrimental to the interests of the people of this island and the most important person on this island is the bold peasant. If he is destroyed the country is finished.

I do not believe in using an Estimate to make political propaganda. What I have said I would say if there were a Fianna Fáil Minister sitting over there. Those are my views. I am not setting myself up as a model but I believe we would have a better democracy if this line was taken by many people. I criticise within my own party where I think criticism is warranted. The Departments of Lands and Agriculture and Fisheries are very important and very closely linked. Directives Nos. 159 and 160 are very close. If this directive had not been changed the number of people who would qualify would be very few. The reason we do not know at present who is a developing farmer and who is not is that advisers are having difficulty in placing people in the development category because of the bad prices of farm produce.

I hope what I have said will be of some use. If so, it will not have been an hour wasted.

Mr. J. Ryan

I shall begin by congratulating the Minister on his progress report on the activities of his Department in the past 12 months. He has got his teeth into a very difficult task and I wish him continued success. I also wish to compliment him on the personal touch he has brought to the Department. I come from a rural constituency and I am sorry to say there is dissatisfaction and depression among small farmers there. This is due mainly to the long delays, up to six or seven years, in the division of land among needy small farmers. We all know that small farmers cannot compete in the land rental system. It is the cheque book on the one hand and the Land Commission on the other who will get the land. In the past couple of years land rentals have gone so high that the small farmer has not a chance to compete.

Deputy Callanan suggested higher prices for land acquisition and other speakers referred to the payment for land in land bonds. I agree that such a system of payment is a disincentive to any man to hand over his holding to the Land Commission. Land value is increasing each year and if a person wishes to involve himself in some other enterprise, land bonds are useless—he must have cash. Therefore, land bonds should carry a greater incentive. Otherwise there will be slower progress in the matter of land acquisition and its division among needy farmers.

Dr. Mansholt means very little to me when I speak of the needs of small farmers who have been the backbone of agriculture in this country. They have worked every perch of their land. In spite of that we have ignored the small farmers who have had some very bad years. Since our entry to the EEC small farmers, the mainstay of the pig industry, have been forced out of it by rising feed prices, and this year they have had their darkest hour. They have also suffered from the drop in cattle prices at a time when our land policy is not geared to help them as they need to be helped. Our land policy needs urgent revision. For instance, there is a qualifying distance. Thirty years ago, two miles was a long way but with modern transport—tractors and other farm vehicles—four or five miles is no problem nowadays.

On the question of the farm retirement scheme, I do not think that in this day and age we can expect a man to surrender his farm in consideration of an allowance of £8 per week. The Minister would be wise to increase this allowance. Another problem in regard to land policy has been brought to my notice by a man who was bequeathed land by a relative. The Land Commission are taking over his holding, he is being issued with land bonds but the Revenue Commissioners are looking for death duties in cash. That man has been put into an impossible position. He has a viable holding but he will have to sell it to pay his death duties. There should be some liaison between the Ministers for Finance and Lands on this aspect.

On forestry, many areas have begun to know the benefit of afforestation. Good progress has been made through the years and I should like to congratulate the Minister and the Department on it. I should like to mention especially the fieldmen who must go out in all kinds of weather to give an invaluable service to the people. I should like to see better working conditions for them.

Although I agree that we have made great progress in afforestation in recent years, I suggest that we should step up our plantings in the next five to ten years. I realise it would involve a lot of money but it would be excellent investment from the point of view of the high cost of imported timber. I would appeal to the Minister to pursue his policy of taking over many more areas. Such an increase in plantings would be well worthwhile and I commend it to the Minister.

Mr. Carter

This debate has been proceeding for some days. We are all interested in and some of us very much aware of the scope and the activities of the Department of Lands. As previous speakers have said, some of us criticise in season and out of season. I hope our criticism will not be unfair or too severe but I think our land policy here has always been open to some criticism.

If we were serious about our attempt to promote succession, exchange of holdings and the upgrading of farms under EEC directives, it should have been apparent to us five years ago that we have not been making substantial progress to solve our huge problems in these areas. I have not statistics with me but one can illustrate this without statistics. We have an enormous number of ailing farmers at the moment and the numbers will continue to increase in the next ten to 15 years. We all know the reasons. We had high emigration figures up to 1970 which made a hole in the population and left us with an undue proportion of young and old. Regrettably, farmers tend to stay on in farming, they tend to be tough about surrendering their rights to stay on in farming. Therefore, we must orientate our policy towards better methods of persuasion. A great deal of money has been spent on advertising the retirement scheme referred to by Deputies Callanan and J. Ryan. I think we could be expending that money in a better way. We all know the benefits, but it can be blown too high when it is indulged in for too long. It becomes mechanical and goes in one ear and out the other.

If the Minister and the Land Commission are determined to make inroads towards solving the hard core of this problem we shall have to put our affairs in order first. We shall have to see to it that one farmer is taken out of each county. To do this we shall need not alone money and manpower but we shall also need psychology and sociology. There is no area in either the services or in industry, or in any other human activity, which needs such thought as the problem of trying to persuade farmers who are no longer productive to leave the land. We can talk about the problems until the cows come home and advertise as much as we like, but the fact is that the taking out of one farmer in each townland would be worth more than all the advertising we can indulge in and worth much more than all the expenditure we would or could devote to advertising.

It is not out of place in this regard to take into account briefly—I suppose a little learning is a dangerous thing—what is happening elsewhere. Not too long ago I was looking at other countries in Europe and at what they were doing. I speak, as I say, from a very limited knowledge, but I discovered that in Germany, for example, the same progression in land ownership, land utilisation and agricultural activities generally was taking place simultaneously with the progression here. The idea is to try to put legs under farmers to make them viable. The aim is to get the farmer at an age when he can be made viable. It is generally contended that one cannot bend an old tree. This has been proved time and time again. One can, however, monitor a young tree and, therefore, if one takes the young farmer he will be more amenable to learning better methods of production and so on as compared with the older farmer who is probably set in his ways. All this, of course, takes time and money.

In dealing with this we are dealing with a problem which has been talked about for five years, or more, a problem in regard to which little progress has been made to date in its solution. For example, in my own county we have not had one farmer taken out of production. I am not criticising that because the particular scheme has not been very long in operation. As I said, the aim abroad is to encourage the younger farmer to take over and get the older man out. Many methods are applied. Abroad they have to deal with villages. Here we have to deal with townlands. They believe abroad that, if they can get out one farmer in each village, they will make some progress. All the problems that affect us affect them. The monetary one might be more acute in our case but they are realists and they like to see a return for their money. While their rate of progress in the years ahead may be greater than ours, we must, I believe, make a start now.

Deputy Callanan referred to the land-bond system. He deprecated it. I fully agree with everything he said. The unsatisfactory situation in regard to land bonds has persisted down through the years. I do not know why it is that the chief asset we possess should not be top-class currency. I am not blaming the present Minister in this connection any more than any other Minister, but some Minister will have to stand up and insist that land bonds are a gilt-edged security and will earn exchange at any time and be exchangeable at any level. They are not at the moment. No bank manager, no solicitor, no auctioneer, no jobber of any kind will accept a land bond from anyone. Why? Because we never sought to put a face on our land bonds. Apparently we never thought it worthwhile to do so. I do not know why. Why should land bonds not be as good a security as the best gilt-edged security in the stock exchange?

The Agricultural Credit Corporation seem to think it is a good investment. So do I.

Why then should we not seek to shore up our land-bond system even to the extent of providing a stockbroker on the floor of the stock exchange if necessary? It is done in other cases, in other commodities, in other countries. I do not see why we could not do it with our primary product. Until we do it, we will never get the progress we are looking for in land manipulation or land regeneration. We simply cannot do it because, even if we had a balance in our favour in every budget, if we had a balance in our favour in our balance of payments, our balance of trade, and so on, we still would not be able to raise enough money in any given year to deal with the pool of land which one would hope will come from the unproductive farmer.

The ups and downs of farming, not merely now but over the past number of years, should be a headline for us. In a short period of years land prices have fluctuated. Land hit the bottom, rebounded to midway, and then hit the top. It is now at the top and there are reasons for this. We should recognise those reasons and, whether the price be midway or at the top, we should still have our land bonds. Instead of acting like a sick man with his temperature shooting up and down, we should ensure that the temperature of land bonds is on an even keel. Until we achieve that, we will get no response or no echo of a response to any scheme we start for the acquisition and distribution of land.

This is an excellent scheme. I am sure the personnel of the Department will do everything possible to work it. I have no doubt about that. We must provide the tools for the inspectorate and others involved. On this scheme I would visualise a very close relationship between the Department of Lands and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. In this regard both would have the same aims. No matter what directive we are working under, I would assume that we would have the common sense to recognise that the man showing signs of growth on his own holding should come first in the reallocation of land, the man developing out of profits, and there are a few of them, believe it or not. A large number are not. When some commodity goes well on the market we are all inclined to follow that trend like sheep—not even like sheep; some of us quite aggressively; more like bulls. This often leads us up a blind alley or gets us into a heap, and adds to our difficulties when a market is depressed and we have not the reserves to live through it.

It has been my contention for some time that while the livestock trade— and I am saying this in the context of the economics of land and land manipulation—was buoyant everyone went in that direction. Apart from the dairying side of it, this can be said to be a lazy system. I do not want to be misrepresented on this. It is a system which has stood us in good stead in the past and provided us with an income, but it is inclined to debilitate good husbandry. In this regard we should be looking outward. We will not always be living through the conditions we have at the moment. The time will come again when we will have a sellers' market and we should be building up for that time.

In trying to be helpful in dealing with this scheme one could suggest that we should reorganise ourselves to deal with it. Even if we cannot do it on a townland basis, we should take a few pilot areas and get the people we are after, the ageing farmers, accustomed to handling over when they are no longer productive. If this were done we would get a feed-back from it. It would be discussed in each area. The ins and outs of the scheme would be apparent and real and on the ground. The inhibition against acceptting the word of an inspector with a paper in his hand showing the conditions governing the scheme might be breached and killed off.

We will be up against other inhibitions which others are up against too. We are not alone in this. One is the reduced status in the community of the person who hands over a holding. There used to be and still is here and in every other country the status of a farmer. We will have to come to grips with this and show the people concerned that there is no reduction in status, that there is not a reduction in income but an increase and, therefore, no encroachment on living standards. We will have to clearly demonstrate this from the start because if we allow this scheme to lag we will run into a series of difficulties which we shall find hard to rid ourselves of. The men in the field will be the ones who will count and they will need to be backed up by the local agricultural instructors.

The Minister mentioned that the income from rentals for lands on the books of the Land Commission never meet the outgoings and I can appreciate this but one can also find fault with the commission for holding on to the land for so long. There may well be legal difficulties and we all know that many legal problems are involved in the acquiring of land. We know that before some of the executive Land Acts, which have a meaning here, were passed we had a problem. We had problems from before the 1870s when a farmer, even if he had an uneconomic holding under the landlord system, divided that farm between two sons. This double problem is inherent in the system because we had this manipulation going on with land.

When the Land Commission found their feet they stopped that sort of creation of rundale and minor holdings. That was a good thing. In regard to overholding the Land Commission are setting a bad example. We all know that the 11-months system should be driven out of existence. It would never have survived but for the livestock trade system which became a pattern here. The smallholders became traders in livestock. It could not be said that they were farmers and they could be called "dealing men". We had too many of them in the past but the younger men have a system of dealing in livestock which does not require them to acquire land on the 11-months' system. However, there are still a few of them operating.

It should be brought home to the younger generation inheriting the land that it is farmers we want, men who will indulge in varied husbandry. We do not want dealers. Our job should be to make every farm viable so that the farmer can stand on his own feet when the economic blizzards blow. Whatever fault may be found with the older generation, although they lived through hard times, they always had a thought for tomorrow. They were able to put by money in bad times and had a reserve around the farmyard when the pinch came. Today we are all throwing our cattle on the market out some of us would be able to keep them if we had the reserves of fodder.

The 11-month system should be clocked for all time. If we are not able to live without some leasing system there should be a minimum of five to 12 years for leasing land. The 11-months' system begot a good deal of trouble for us. It was brought about by the livestock trade in order to acquire grass land with no thought for the following winter or spring.

When it was introduced the older men were able to balance the economy. We should be aiming to do that in the scheme before us and I hope we are not setting out to create people who depend for a living on dealing or people who depend on some other service. We should be setting out to balance the farming system in such a manner so that each farmer will be able to stand on his own feet and weather any storm.

I am not one of the Friends of the Earth but I often thought it would be a good idea to join. I never had time to study the Friends of the Earth but from what I have heard of them I have concluded that they are a very useful movement and that we could learn a lot from them. They are laughed at as being nuts but they are not. We want to promote farming in a more intensive manner, to get up production but we should do this without spoiling our surroundings and under the terms of conservation.

We are all agreed that forestry has made great strides here. It has been stated, in relation to the acreage under forestry, that we are not on a par with other countries.

Looking at a forest, I often think of our history. A forest is an historic monument. People fail to realise that when Britain wanted timber during the 1914-18 war she was not very squeamish about cutting down our forests. We indulged in this ourselves and cut every forest we had. Since forestry started 30 or 40 years ago our performance has been creditable when we take into account our total budgetary expenditure. One would hope that we will go ahead from there. In the next ten or 12 years forestry should become very nearly a self-sufficient service. Therefore Deputies should always give as much help as possible to forestry.

The Minister stated that research was being carried out into the prospects for hard timber. This has been neglected in the past. Possibly because of our hurry to have forests established, we were attracted by the rapidity with which trees of the green timber type grow. We must recognise that in 30 to 35 years we can grow here a Sitka spruce to a height of 100 feet. This cannot be done in Sweden, which is a much better timber country. In my view climate plays a part. We have a softer climate which produces a slightly softer timber, while the harder climate in Sweden produces a slightly harder timber. This should not deter us.

I feel very proud when I hear a forester say that a forest was planted in 1935, or whenever it was planted, and can look up and see a Sitka spruce 100 feet high. This is quite an achievement. I always regret that at this stage of our efforts towards conservation we do not have regional foresters available to advise county committees of agriculture and others of the worth of planting timber. When I look back at the amounts of money spent on subsidiary farm buildings, farmyards and so forth, I realise that we could have had a much better shelter belt system to conserve grass if a portion of that money had been spent on that system. We love to hear about the long grass period but if we were to go in that direction we could do it best by having instruction from the local forester in regard to the shelter belt system. We could also save some money on farm buildings. We have a mild enough climate to permit of this type of activity and we should encourage it.

We all admire the wildlife population in our forests. I should like to think that the younger people will continue with this wildlife preservation so that soon it will become a natural activity which need not be sponsored by the Forestry Division to be brought to the notice of the public by advertisements. Our forests and the wildlife population are a credit to the country and worthy of preservation. If the regional game councils, Bord Fáilte and the wildlife section of the Forestry Division work together, they should be able to reduce expenditure on the preservation of forests from fires and the wanton destruction of wildlife. We should be moving from that and becoming more adult.

Did the gun clubs play a sufficient part in this? I have known of gun clubs who tried to promote the breeding of game but who made no provision for their survival. There is not much point in trying to breed game and then leaving them at the mercy of the natural forces of nature. Young pheasants could die from want of shelter or the right kind of food or water. That happened in the past, but I do not think it is happening now.

We have a scheme for well-marked out wildlife sanctuaries. The activities of Bord na Móna, the ESB and others have cut down on the scope of survival for wildlife here. The aim of the Ascendency here was to preserve wildlife and they did it very well. After 50 years we should be able to do better, even though our scope is limited. Years ago there was great scope because there were no encroachments on the bogs. There was no Bord na Móna or no ESB. We welcome Bord na Móna and the ESB but we should ensure that we will be able to conserve wildlife here and at the same time have the other activities.

I encourage the aim for the promotion of hardwood in certain areas. As I said earlier, we are now reaching the point where our forest services will be self-sufficient in a few years. I hope also we will turn more to native timbers to enable us to provide more employment.

I would hope also that the Forestry Division would keep an eye on Bord na Móna to investigate what may be done with the cut-out bog which the board will undoubtedly have in the next ten or 15 years. We should make plans to utilise to the full every square perch of that land.

We will be planting for the coming generation because it takes an oak tree a long time to grow. I was looking at one not so long ago 100 years old and it will take it nearly another 100 years to develop. It is a very long-term investment but very worthwhile, even if we are planting for posterity. We did not inherit very much hard or soft timber. Yet we have gone a long way in the 40 years or so in which we have been engaging in forestry activities. I would encourage the escalation of those activities, not merely from the point of view of utility but in order also to beautify, purify and conserve the fresh air we have in this country.

Mr. Gilhawley

I should like to congratulate the Minister and his staff on the manner in which this Estimate has been presented. I should like also to compliment him and his staff for the manner in which they have received Deputies at their offices during the last year. I found them very courteous and they gave me all the assistance that could possibly be given. I presume they do the same for every other Deputy. We often have a "run in" with them but it is only fair that this tribute should be put on record. While on this subject, I should like also to pay a tribute to our local inspectorate in Sligo with whom we have very happy relations and who are very helpful at all times.

This is an Estimate in which Deputies from the west have a very keen interest and on which they speak each year. It is little wonder because scarcely a day of the week passes that one does not have some farmer approaching one—mostly young farmers nowadays I am very glad to say—looking for unworked land to be acquired and, where land has been acquired, seeking its distribution. This shows that the small farmer is prepared to work more land than he possesses. It is an indication also that he has a keen interest in the land and illustrates that the old theory that young people, and especially young men in the west, would emigrate rather than stay on the land is no longer valid. Of course the snag is that there is just not sufficient land to go round, but I shall return to that later.

Last year when speaking on this Estimate I asked the Minister to increase the staff of our inspectorate in Sligo and he did so, for which I am very grateful, because without such an increase in staff there would have been a continuation of the long delays experienced in the activities of the inspectorate. Work is proceeding in my area now at a much faster pace. Nevertheless I think he would probably need to take another look at this question. With the advent of the farmers' retirement scheme it may be that a further increase in staff will be necessary.

There are a few points I want to make and bring to the notice of the Minister. One is in connection with the letting of land acquired by the Land Commission pending distribution. I have received some complaints in this respect from time to time. It is contended that outsiders who have the money can grab such land to the exclusion of the small farmers in the locality, that is, if the land is put up for public auction as is often done. This should be avoided if at all possible. In my constituency every effort is being made to avoid this, because if land is put up for sale by public auction it can be bought by the man with the money, by the speculator, who sometimes does not appear himself— he may have an agent there—and this is most unfair to the smallholders in the locality, especially in cases where those smallholders may have been in occupation of the land on the 11-months' basis for a number of years. Those smallholders may have been expecting an allocation of that land, and rightly so.

It is a difficult problem, I realise, but every effort should be made to protect the weak, small farmer in the locality of the farm to be allocated against the richer one and the speculator. I do not know if a reasonable way can be found for the letting of this land. I know the question of private treaty has been mentioned, as was done here last year. But that might not work either because sometimes the auctioneer could be subject to pressures and perhaps allegations of discrimination, too. Last year there was mention also of sealed tenders. This might be the best method of resolving the problem. With regard to sealed tenders for small farmers inside a specified area, there may be difficulties also. In any event, the Minister should try and resolve the problem, devising a scheme so that the land would be let to the needy, local applicants at a fair market price, because the small farmer cannot compete with the richer one or the speculator.

In this connection I should like to mention the case of the person in possession of land on the 11-months' system when that land is being taken over. Clear possession has to be obtained by the commission and in that case the stock must be driven onto the road and the gates locked. I should like to see longer notice given to the occupier of the land to enable him to make arrangements to get a place elsewhere for his stock. At least one or two months' notice should be given. In recent times farmers are finding it difficult to get rid of stock and a scheme should be devised whereby the land would be set to the occupier until he gets rid of his stock. That should be done before the date on which clear possession is sought. This reasonable suggestion might be given consideration.

In my county there are some vacant houses on Land Commission property and it appears there is an unreasonable delay in disposing of them. In some cases they are vacant for months. In two instances the land has been divided for some time but instructions have not been received by the inspectors in Sligo to dispose of the houses. This is a wrong policy and it must be costing the Land Commission a considerable amount of money. I imagine the hold-up may be in the solicitor's branch of the Land Commission.

When houses are not inhabited they deteriorate quite rapidly. The policy of the Land Commission with regard to houses has changed recently. I remember a time when they did not want buildings, when they wanted only land. In the past bulldozers were used to demolish buildings, but nowadays buildings are extremely valuable. I agree with the present policy, which appears to be to leave a garden of one or two acres with the house, and then they are put up for public auction. I know the Land Commission have got fantastic prices for this kind of property because there is a big demand for it. I would ask the Minister to ensure that houses are not left vacant for indefinite periods because they are deteriorating and depreciating in value. If a needy person applies he should be allowed to enter on a tenant's agreement. There have been cases in country areas where people have been in urgent need of housing at a time when houses in the vicinity were vacant.

I can quote the example of a man, his wife and seven children who lived in a house on an estate that was acquired by the Land Commission. The vendor issued a notice to quit on the tenant and he had to get out because the Land Commission wanted clear possession on a certain day. I did my best to get a tenant's agreement signed whereby the tenant would give up possession but could return afterwards. However that did not happen, even though I think it should have. It was a severe hardship on this family who had to look for accommodation even though there was a vacant house on Land Commission property. I should like to see the approach liberalised, that needy people be allowed into houses before they are put up for sale. I will give details of the two houses I have in mind to the Minister afterwards.

With regard to the retirement scheme formulated under EEC Directive No. 160, I do not go all the way with my colleague from the west, Deputy Callanan, with regard to his version of the scheme. I am hopeful it will be a success. It is an excellent scheme in that it encourages the farmers of 65 years, and indeed all other farmers, to leave farming if they are not happy in that occupation. It must be remembered there is no compulsion whatever in this matter; it is a voluntary scheme and it should get a chance. It is difficult to sell it because we are trying to break old traditions. The Press have done a fairly good job in trying to sell it and the other media have assisted, but ultimately it is up to every Deputy to try to sell the scheme to farmers, to break the old tradition whereby they held on to their land until they died.

In the west, for example, there are many defective titles and many farmers die without having made any will. This shows clearly their reluctance to release their hold on the land. However I am glad to be able to tell the Minister that the response to the retirement scheme has been quite good in my county. There have been several inquiries. Between 30 and 40 people appear to be going ahead with their plans to avail of the scheme and in one case the process has been completed and the land leased. Therefore, so far as Sligo is concerned, it would appear that the scheme will prove successful. As a Deputy, I am doing my best to sell the scheme and shall continue to do so.

It should be emphasised to the farming community that Directive 160 specifies that a premium may be paid to any farmer who avails of the retirement scheme and that in the case of farmers of 55 years or more both a premium and a pension will apply. Under the EEC scheme the annuity was £420 for a married man and £280 for a single man. These terms will apply for those up to 65 years of age, which is the age for the coming into operation of the old age pension in other EEC countries. However the Minister has produced a scheme that is a vast improvement on the EEC one. It is much more liberal and generous in its terms than is the scheme set out in the EEC Directive in respect of pensions and the duration of pensions.

I have mentioned the difficulty involved in trying to sell the scheme. We must be prepared to indicate to farmers how attractive the scheme is, that they may retire from farming activities if they wish but that they will have financial security and, as the Minister has said so often, they can retire in dignity.

We remember the time when farmers complained they had no pension rights as had civil servants, teachers or other sections of the community. That is no longer the case. Not only can the farmer avail of a pension but he may qualify also for a gratuity. I hope they will avail of this benefit. It is for us Deputies to help sell the scheme to them. An important factor in this context, too, is that the land released on the retirement of farmers will be used to the advantage of those who wish to remain in agriculture but who are not able to derive a decent living from their present holdings. The acquisition of additional land would not only allow them to remain in agriculture but would afford them a better standard of living.

Occasionally one hears people say that the Land Commission should be abolished. I would not go along with that at all because never before were the activities of the Land Commission as necessary as they are today. Competition for land is so great that, were it not for the activities of the Land Commission, the small farmer would be squeezed out by the rich farmer and by the speculator. By their process of acquisition and distribution of land the Land Commission ensure the survival of the small farmer who would not be in a position to compete with the wealthy man on the open market. The weak farmer must be protected and the Land Commission are the only means by which this protection can be afforded to him. We may have our disappointments from time to time regarding the Land Commission but on the whole they are doing a reasonably good job.

It is said sometimes that landless men should be given land. From time to time I am approached by such men and I always have sympathy for them because, mostly, they are men who were reared on small farms and who helped their fathers until they reached the age of, say 17. Then younger brothers assumed the role of helping out so that there was no place for the older one and he could not be afforded an agricultural labourer's wage on a small farm. In such a case if there is a farm being divided in the neighbourhood, a boy might say to me that if only he could get ten or 15 acres he would be willing to try his hand at making a living from agriculture. This is the position that obtains throughout the west. However, as it is the policy of the Land Commission to create economic holdings, the distribution of land must be considered in that context.

Regarding the question of what constitutes a viable farm, some years ago a holding of 20 or 25 acres was considered viable but today the figure is 45 acres provided the land is good. In defining what is a viable holding one must take into account the type of farming engaged in. When I was growing up I lived on a farm that was not a big one but we engaged in mixed farming. We had cows, sheep, pigs, turkeys, geese, hens and so on. Today however the tendency is to engage in intensive farming so that one farmer will specialise in beef while another will concentrate on dairying. Generally speaking however I agree with the Minister when he says that a viable farm should be one which would provide a decent living for a man, his wife and family.

Statistics show that there are more than 60,000 farmers on substandard holdings. Naturally those people should be given priority in the allocating of land by the Land Commission. We all know there is not enough land available to cater for all needs and perhaps the farm retirement scheme may help in this respect.

In regard to landless men, it is difficult to do anything on a large-scale here because you would introduce new applicants into an overcrowded pool of small farmers. Small industries in towns and villages are a great help to a small farmer of from ten to 20 acres. He has his pay packet every week and he can easily live on his small farm. The average farm of land in my county is only 30 acres.

I should like to say something about the acquisition and distribution of land. We find it very hard to justify some things which happen, but by and large the Land Commission are doing a very good job. Sometimes we have a case where every rule in the book is broken. I know of a single man, who had a good job with a large salary, who bought a farm of land 30 to 40 miles away from his work. This land would have made four adjoining farmers viable as it was an ideal setup. The inspector in Sligo strongly recommended the acquisition of this farm but the sale went through. In another case I saw the opposite happen where a man wanted to buy a small bit of land to help with his business and he was refused it. I find it very hard to explain those actions to the people who come to me and ask me about them. I know those are cases in isolation and that in general everything is working out well in regard to the acquisition and distribution of land. But I would like to know why the inspector's recommendation was turned down.

I understand that we have four lay commissioners. I do not intend to criticise them. I should like to know what power the Minister has in respect of lay commissioners? Has he any say in the acquisition of land? Can he say to the Land Commission, without going to the lay commissioners: "Go after that farm, take it?" Has he anything to say in regard to the distribution of land, or is he completely out in the cold? I should like answers to those questions because I have been asked them frequently.

It should be emphasised by the Land Commission that the fact of a person having possession of land on the 11-months' system does not help him to qualify for that land. People often say to me: "I thought this land would double its price and that it would help me get possession." I tell them that is wrong, but I know that excessive prices have been paid for lettings by people—people who would not otherwise qualify—because they thought they would qualify for possession of that land.

I should like to compliment the Minister on giving £2¼ million in the current nine months for the purchase of land for cash. This is a great step forward. This will entice farmers to part with their land for cash. I agree with the other speakers in what they said about land bonds. The present system is completely undemocratic and something should be done about it. First of all, you acquire land by compulsory acquisition; then the people are brought into a land court to settle a fair price if it cannot be settled otherwise; and then you give them something they do not want. I am not blaming the Minister or the Irish Land Commission for this because this is something that was inherited. However, something should be done about this quickly. The mention of bonds to anybody intending to sell land is like a red rag to a bull— nobody wants them.

Frequently in my constituency land is taken for forestry. When the local farmers find this has happened they come to us pleading that the Land Commission should take it over. This is usually not good land, land in the foothills of the mountains, but it provides coarse grazing or what they call "a run" for their cattle. I know quite a number of farmers who have made a very good living but if the "run" for their cattle were taken from them their means would be considerably reduced because they would have to reduce the number of stock. I know one man who kept his son at home and they worked the foothills of a mountain. They had about 20 acres on the 11-months' system further down. The Forestry Division were to take that. I hope they do not because there is plenty of mountain land for forestry apart from that. I know that timber is scarce, that forestry gives good employment and that in the long term timber will produce wealth, but the hunting of even one farmer off the land by taking land for forestry is not warranted.

Very often I come across defective titles. I have already referred to the old farmer holding on to land and not making a will. There are many defective titles in the west and to have them set right involves a very lengthy process which is also rather expensive for the small farmer. Some special method should be devised to enable those titles to be quickly cleared, especially now when we are promoting farm retirement schemes. I should like the Minister to look into the matter. I come across it very often and where there is a defective title a transfer can take a year or longer to negotiate.

Again, I compliment the Minister and his staff on the manner in which this Estimate was prepared and introduced. I should also like to thank the local inspectorate in Sligo whom I found always most obliging.

Mr. Allen

I wish to compliment the Minister on having secured additional staff for the inspectorate. This is something for which Deputies on both sides have been pressing for a considerable time. There was considerable delay in this area for some time past.

Farmers, generally speaking, have the idea that the Land Commission hold land for a long time so that they can make money out of it. That is practically admitted in the relevant subhead of the Estimate because it shows that the amount of money taken in has no longer to be subsidised to cover expenses. Previous Ministers and the present Minister have tried to speed up the division of land. I believe that delay is due to the fact that the Land Commission have always required far better titles than any private individual would require. The previous Minister tried to eliminate the red tape—I think the present Minister did also—but it still exists. Nobody likes delay in the division of land and in nine cases out of ten it results in the land being run down by the time it is divided and the incoming farmer has to restore its fertility gradually. Therefore something should be done to remedy this situation, especially now when it is a paying proposition for the Land Commission. Farmers always felt that it was paying but it seems it is only paying now for the first time, as I know it.

A sum of £2¼ million is provided for the purchase of land by cash and this is very desirable compared with bonds. But I would ask the Minister to give a breakdown of this sum as between the amount allocated for the purchase of land for forestry and that for the retirement scheme. I understand there is now no money available for the purchase of land on a voluntary basis but that there is money available for purchases under the retirement scheme and that there will be an excess on that side which could be transferred to the voluntary purchase side. Could the Minister say how the money has been allocated so far this year, the proportion allocated for the retirement scheme and paid out or about to be paid out, and the proportion for which the Land Commission are committed for the purchase of land on a voluntary basis? If we had those figures it would enlighten us considerably.

I have spoken about land bonds here before. One sees in the newspapers the present price of land bonds and it gives one an unmerciful shock. One finds 7½ per cent land bonds worth £56.50; 9¾ per cent bonds, which were in vogue up to last year, £67.25; and 12½ per cent land bonds at £95.50.

Land bonds are daylight robbery. Being an auctioneer, I have been on a few of these Land Commission compulsory purchase cases, and we have a price fixed at so much per acre in 12½ per cent land bonds. When the farmer comes to sell these land bonds, say £20,000 worth he finds he cannot sell them, especially if a big lot of them come on the market. But apart from not being able to sell them, by the time the cost of selling them is taken into consideration as well as what they are advertised at in the daily papers, say, £95.50 per £100, he will lose £10 to £15 per £100. This is unjust and undemocratic and we should get away from this system as much as possible. For the Minister to talk about the £2,500,000 as being the greatest amount ever made available in cash, is deceptive because he is making the greater proportion of that available to the retirement scheme, and I do not think any great extra amount will go into the other end of it. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on that and whether he thinks land bonds are unjust.

Under subhead I which provides £700,000 for improvement work, there are one or two items which call for comment. I have seen farms that the Land Commission have divided. They would take a five-acre field and divide it by putting a fence down the middle of it. It is ridiculous to divide a five-acre field at a cost of, perhaps, £1,000 or £1,500. Again, in regard to drainage of land before it is divided there is room for improvement. Unless a farmer comes under the farm modernisation scheme he is not eligible for grants, and I shall come back to that later on.

There is £5,790 provided for nine displaced employees. The Department are very slow in the settling of displaced employees whether it is in regard to compensation or the division of the holding they are working on. I know of one instance in my own county where a farm was purchased five years ago and the man has got neither compensation nor a position on the holding yet. That is most unjust.

The Minister spoke at some length on the farm retirement scheme. The one thing that really annoys me about the scheme and the reallocation of land is that the Department to this day keep talking about 45 acres of arable land. A farmer today should have 60 to 70 acres of arable land if he is to rear a family and educate them. As regards the farm modernisation scheme, there are applications enough, but the delay by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in categorising farmers is something I find hard to accept. I do not know what the liaison between the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Department of Lands will be regarding the division of land and the categorising of farmers, but the sooner the Land Commission decide once and for all that 45 acres is not a viable unit the better. Most people who are involved in agriculture today will accept that 45 acres, unless there is specialisation in fruit growing or something like that, is not sufficient.

The retirement scheme is desirable in itself, and there are about 1,000 applications in a six-months' period. However, if the Department take six months to determine something like 120 applications out of 1,000, I wonder how long they will take to determine the thousands of applications they have. This kind of progress is not good enough, and I hope the Minister will assure us that the inspection and determination of these applications will be speeded up.

The Minister referred to the retirement scheme for farmers. A farmer, whether he owns two acres or 200 acres, is a very proud person. The smaller his farm the prouder is the farmer. He has a stake in the country. I am glad to see that there is no compulsion on farmers to fall into line with this scheme. If a farmer wants to hold on to his farm he is quite entitled to do so. My colleague, Deputy Cunningham, baffled me somewhat last week when he spoke about auctioneers going around with Department inspectors. I am an auctioneer and I would hate the Minister to get the impression that auctioneers are going around putting guns to the heads of small farmers in any part of the country to come in under this scheme.

In regard to forestry, I do not consider the Department are paying a fair price for land acquired. In the Blackstairs Mountains in Wexford negotiations went on for 20 years or more before land was purchased because of a few pounds one way or another. The same is happening in another part of Wexford where I understand negotiations are still going on. The Department are not doing enough, especially in mountain areas, to encourage people to give up land. People who have had mountain grazing rights for generations are not getting fair compensation.

I had complaints from owners of small mills that they cannot purchase forestry timber because the lots being offered are too big. The owner of a small mill may want to purchase two or three dozen trees and cannot afford a bigger lot. I would like the Minister to assure me that such people will be given the opportunity of purchasing small lots of timber.

There is a decline in the number of forestry employees and there have been big delays in some instances in the paying of gratuities to retired forestry workers. I know of one case that has been going on for three years. The man involved had to retire because of ill-health and he has not yet been paid his gratuity.

Some people have given me the impression that enough land was not acquired for the wild life sanctuary in the North Slob in Wexford. I should like to hear the Minister's view on this. Is it as successful as it should be in the matter of the preservation of wild life in that area? The Minister said that the Wildlife Bill, 1974 will be published shortly. I would like the Minister to be more specific about the date because many people are concerned about this matter.

Mr. Malone

I should like to compliment the Minister on the report of progress in his speech and to thank him and the officials of his Department for the help and courtesy they have shown me at all times when I have gone to them with problems concerning the Land Commission in my constituency. I, like many Deputies, have complained about the length of time it takes to divide an estate. In fairness to the Land Commission we must take into account the very thorough and detailed examination which they make of every case in the district. The policy is that land is allocated to people within a mile of the estate. There can be quite a large number of people within that mile radius. Each case must be thoroughly examined so that allocation is on the fairest possible basis. We have all had complaints from time to time that people have been given land for reasons other than economic ones. We can be sure that anybody bringing such complaints to the Minister and having them examined will find very definite reasons why certain people receive land who, some people might think, were not entitled to it.

In the Department's report for 1971-72, which the Minister laid before the House on 11th January last, the introduction states that the Land Commission had been established originally as a rent-fixing body, and that they were by law developed into a tenant-purchasing agency for the elimination of landlordism and the conversion of tenants into proprietors. They were ultimately expanded into a great purchaser and distributor of land, mainly for the relief of rural congestion.

They were the most laudable aims one could imagine but it is annoying and frustrating when one finds after a number of years that a holding has been divided at considerable expense to the State and that people on holdings of 20 to 25 acres, realising they cannot exist on that area of land, decide to sell and the purchaser is quite frequently somebody with a cheque book. In such circumstances, instead of solving congestion in an area, that holding reverts to what it originally was—a ranch. I realise that people have every right to sell their land once it is vested in them if they cannot make a living out of it, but the Land Commission should realise that having originally acquired and allocated this land, and with people on adjoining holdings with their eyes open for a few more acres to find a rich man coming in to acquire that land, seems contrary to the principles on which the Land Commission were founded. Such holdings should be reacquired by the Land Commission and divided among deserving smallholders in the area. I would urge the Minister to keep that in mind in the future.

The Minister referred to the commonage problem and this is also referred to in the 1971-72 report. The Minister stated very clearly what the problems are and the solutions that have been arrived at in some cases. However there are cases where tenants in common are unwilling to have their commonage acquired and divided by the Land Commission. A number of such people are otherwise landless and the policy of the Land Commission being that landless people are not entitled to get an allocation, such people think they will be "done out" of the commonage. It should be pointed out to them that if the Land Commission come in to divide a commonage it will not debar such people from getting their share of it. I think that would help to solve that problem in some, if not all, areas.

It has been very noticeable in recent times how anxious such tenants have become to improve the quality of the land. We have some progressive farming being done on these commonages and it should be pointed out to them that the Land Commission would be going in to help them.

In his opening speech the Minister pointed out that the acreage of land being acquired each year is still exceeding the acreage being distributed. This is a very healthy sign in view of the increased cost of land, but I am wondering will the Minister at some future time be depending on the lands of retiring farmers for his land pool rather than on acquiring further land. This hinges on the point made by Deputy Allen about the purchase of land for cash and the amount of money to be paid in retirement pensions. If the acquisition of land is to continue and if the retirement scheme is to be operated at the same time, a very sizeable area of land will be available for reallocation and I suggest that a large number of extra staff will have to be recruited to administer it.

One depressing note in the Minister's speech in relation to afforestation is that the land pool is rapidly disappearing. He stated, however, that without further acquisition, planting can continue for a number of years. That is satisfactory as far as it goes, but at the end of that time the Forestry Division will find themselves without land for further planting. It is to their credit that they are probably the most imaginative group in the Department. They have evoked tremendous interest in forestry. They send out information regarding forest walks, where and when they will be held, and the information in their report for 1972-73 is extremely detailed. It is heartening to realise that so much work has been done but it is depressing to find that the pool of land for further expansion is running out.

On the question of grants for private planting, the Minister might take a look at the figures and ask himself if they are realistic in this day and age. In the report I have just mentioned it is stated that the grant for private planting was raised from £20 to £35 per acre, payable in two instalments, the first of £20 on the satisfactory formation of the plantation and the balance after seven years, subject to satisfactory maintenance.

A sum of £20 for the satisfactory formation of the plantation is much too small considering the costs involved in the setting up of the plantation. Indeed, a grant of £20 an acre for the removal of scrub is also ridiculously low bearing in mind the great advantage it will be to the State eventually since it will be a long time before a return will be received from the planting by the farmer. If farmers were to get something more attractive by way of grant there would. I am sure, be a great deal more interest in private planting.

The interest in trees is, as I said, growing rapidly. I am sure the House was very interested in the document produced by An Taisce—"The Case for Tree Preservation in Ireland"—— which they brought out some time ago. One may not agree with everything in the document, but it is a very detailed study and it is something on which An Taisce should be very highly commended. In one section they make proposals designed to correct vandalism. They emphasise the need for education. They say that vandalism can only be cured by education. I am sure the Department of Education would be sympathetic to any project designed to cure vandalism and I believe such a project could be successful. An Taisce is prepared to show films in schools. The Minister, if he has not already done so, should take An Taisce up on this because it is a great tragedy to see young plantations especially, destroyed by vandalism. If young people were educated and made aware of how important trees are to the nation they would have a greater respect for them. So, too, would the people who avail of the forest walks; they would have a greater understanding of their responsibilities particularly from the point of view of avoiding starting forest fires. It is not unusual, especially in springtime, to hear of hundreds of acres of trees being destroyed by fire, fire due possibly to the careless throwing away of a cigarette end.

It is to be hoped that the progress in the Department, in the land division section and under the retirement scheme project, plus the further expansion of forestry, will continue.

Mr. Esmonde

This is always an interesting Estimate from the point of view of rural Deputies like myself. I compliment the Minister wholeheartedly on the establishment of the retirement scheme for farmers. This was long overdue. It is absolutely essential as a structural reform. It is one of the major reforms introduced and fathered by this Government.

On the Estimate last year an Opposition Deputy raised the question of widows who are unable to manage lands in their possession. Very often the holdings are such that they are not large enough to support the wages of an agricultural labourer and, at the same time, give a livelihood to the widow and children. From that point of view retirement pensions are vitally important as is the premium on the sale price. Having said that, I have a bone to pick with the EEC about the directive dealing with the retirement scheme.

We all know that part of the finances for this scheme come from the EEC funds and that naturally gives the EEC a right to call the tune as to requirements. The EEC apparently examined the Irish position. I know the Commission has been fully informed by the Department of Lands as to the particular circumstances obtaining here. Where I criticise the EEC is in regard to the requirement that the lands must not be let on conacre within the five years prior to the application for this scheme. It is quite obvious the Commission in Brussels do not appreciate the structure of Irish farming. This is just another example among the many we have had in recent times of a certain lack of understanding. If people who let land on conacre are debarred from participating in the retirement scheme a considerable number will be precluded from the scheme. This, to me, is utter and absolute nonsense in the Irish context. This is the kind of land that ought to be in the possession of the Land Commission and this is the type of holding that should be able to benefit under the retirement scheme. I know representations have been made to the Commission and I know the Commission has ruled that where lands have been let on conacre those lands are not eligible under the retirement scheme. I know two cases in my own constituency who have been refused. The tragedy is that, in one case, if the land had been taken over it was vitally necessary for a proper reallocation among smallholders in the area.

Taking into consideration the remarks made by Deputy Allen in relation to land bonds, with which I agree, the offer of land bonds to this person would not be adequate and proper compensation. The retirement scheme would have been ideal and would have done justice. Because of the fact that she found herself in some difficulties after her husband's death, she had to let part of the land and, because of that, she is precluded from the scheme. I would imagine that there are a tremendous number of people in that category.

There is tremendous goodwill among the rural community and their advisers and leaders who are backing this scheme. We see for the first time a scheme which will give us an opportunity of reorganising and putting on a proper footing congested areas and holdings which are not properly viable and, therefore, giving the State an opportunity of reorganising unbalanced land structures.

I do not like to appear to have come in the second day running to criticise the EEC but I feel very strongly on this matter. I have a feeling that this will preclude 50 per cent of the applicants, people who would like to join the scheme, in my county. Many Deputies who contribute to the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Lands come from western seaboard constituencies. I can assure the Minister that there is serious congestion and serious imbalance in holdings in County Wexford despite the fact that it is described as the model county. Indeed it is the model county. We have our problems just like any other county but we do not wear our problems on our sleeves as easily as some people from other parts of Ireland.

This brings me to a point which I raised before: the prolonged letting of lands acquired by the Land Commission. We are living in an age of inflation. I cannot exclude the Land Commission from criticism in relation to the size of the rents obtained from land let by the Land Commission. When I spoke on this Estimate before, I asked the Minister to make it quite clear that people who take lettings from lands acquired by the Land Commission do not necessarily assist themselves in obtaining any order of priority in relation to the reallocation of those lands on any estate. Still people are bidding for lands let by the Land Commission and are paying prices completely out of all reality.

If the letting price of land is given a boost in an area like Wexford it is bound to boost the sale price of land. If you push up the income to be obtained from the letting of land you are bound to push up the capital value of the land. I regret to say that in my constituency this has had the effect that Wexford farmers are not in a position to bid for land in their own county, and far too much land is being bought by outsiders. Indeed, there are certain areas in County Wexford where you would need to have a foreign language to converse with the people. I am glad to see that there has been a slight slowing down in that imported element when there are farmers on small non-viable holdings in the area who want land but, by virtue of this land inflation, aided and abetted by the high rents obtained by the Land Commission on the letting of land they have acquired, they are put out of the picture.

They are put out of the picture even to the extent that banks in the past were prepared to lend anything up to 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the value of the land for purchasing purposes. I regard this as a very serious matter. It is one of the current "cribs" and the subject of quite vocal expressions of opinion by the agricultural community in Wexford. I understand that at times it has attained the headlines in my local provincial Press, and rightly so.

The Minister referred to the difficulty he is experiencing in finding land for forestry purposes. Since the hill farming schemes are in, and aids are to be given to hill farmers——and I have particularly in mind the area mentioned by Deputy Allen over towards the Blackstairs mountain; I also have ideas about the Forth mountain area and all up around Coolgraine——I am a little bit concerned about the fact that the Minister has to wear two hats which are not compatible with each other at times. The forestry section want land and the smallholders want land.

I have in mind the difficulty concerning collops, grazing rights and commonages on mountain and hill areas. For a farmer in those areas to qualify for the hill farming scheme he has to be the owner of the land. Under the collops system he is not, as such, the owner of the land in the normal sense of the word. Therefore, that land over which he has rights does not appear to qualify. So I have been informed by my constituents who have gone into this matter with the relevant Department.

It would be well if the Forestry Division were only purchasers of last resort if no one was interested in land in these areas. It should be the duty of the Land Commission and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to inform farmers in the area that this land can be used for agricultural purposes and can be improved, and that money is available for that purpose. The Forestry Division should not move in or express any interest in the area until all other avenues have been investigated.

We have always had and always will have the perennial complaint of lack of land for farming purposes. Having said that, might I suggest to the Minister that, where lands are acquired by the Land Commission, there might be the stipulation in relation to the allocation of the land—— there is bound to be waste land in lands acquired——that there would be planting of that waste part of the land and that the Forestry Division would provide the know-how and do the work? Plenty of employment would then be available for those who are now possibly in danger of losing their employment in forestry. Many of these men have worked all their lives in forestry.

In the northern part of my constituency there is a nursery which supplies a considerable number of young trees. Quite a bit of research work in relation to new varieties has been done in that nursery.

I would hate to see the livelihood of men jeopardised by virtue of the lack of land for forestry activities. I believe that the Forestry Division should initiate a campaign on the television, radio and in the media, particularly in rural areas, suggesting that the Forestry Division would be interested in going into partnership or taking over land owned by private individuals for planting purposes. If there is a scheme of that type in vogue it does not seem to be taking hold and does not seem to be known by the agricultural community.

In my view the system of giving grants for planting has not been a success. There are huge areas where there is absolutely no shelter whatsoever. There seems to be a slight endemic disease of thought among farmers in certain areas leading them to cut down all trees and all shelter. Farmers who have no shelter this winter will be feeding their stock more fodder while those with shelter will be able to save money in this regard. Certain areas are devoid of trees, not necessarily because of climatic or environmental conditions, but the trees have been removed and not replaced. Ireland was denuded of her forests and trees in the first World War. The Forestry Division have done a lot of work replacing that loss but there is a great deal more room for co-operation between the private owner and the Forestry Division.

There are many young men in my constituency who are more than a little interested in taking up forestry as a career and this seems to be gaining hold among the youth. Many of them have completed a partial horticultural course but they are very interested in the activities of the Forestry Division. With that goodwill and interest this is the time for the Department to strike and take up that offer of goodwill.

I do not wish to be party political on the next subject I wish to refer to, the question of land reclamation. Hours, days, weeks and months in general elections were spent spouting about this problem but there seems to be a grave lack of an organisation to deal with smaller catchment areas of drainage. Of all Deputies, I believe I can talk with a certain amount of authority on this matter because a pioneer voluntary scheme has been undertaken in Wexford. This has meant that 600 acres of land that were non-viable have now been provided with the drainage which will permit the land project to move in and do work. I am referring to the work of the Tacumshane Drainage Committee. In that case 30 farmers got together, made an assessment of this area and got down to work knowing that at the beginning of the century a very well-off land owner tried to do this work and had gone bankrupt.

The local authorities tried also but failed abysmally. This group of farmers have put themselves "in hock" to get the scheme off the ground and, thank God, they have succeeded against all odds and with very little encouragement from anyone. They had been sitting there looking at this area for a couple of generations and they decided to take the chance, and they got away with it. They got away with it even though they were told it was not on except by one engineer in a Government Department. With the co-operation of that engineer and advice, freely given, they have managed to surmount the frightful problems and difficulties. The result ultimately will be that there will be a lowering of a water table to an extent, we hope, of five feet——a monumental achievement.

The scheme has been working for a short time only but I understand there has been a drop in the water table of between 12 inches and 18 inches. This means that 600 acres of land, land on which it was dangerous to put cattle, will now be available for grazing and also for tillage purposes. I am assured that in the dim and distant past some of this land was tilled for oats and potatoes and that good crops were yielded by it. I suggest to the Minister for Lands, who has mentioned that certain moneys have been saved on grants-in-aid, subhead C1, to give some of this money to the Tacumshane drainage committee.

I am quite sure that a man of goodwill, despite technicalities that might arise in the allocation of finance, could find a way around these difficulties to assist in work like this. These men have managed to carry out this work at what I would say, at a conservative estimate, is half of the estimated cost given by experts because these men have given freely of their time, freely of such machinery as they had in their possession to such an extent that they have managed to curtail the paid-labour cost to a figure like £3,500. This job certainly entailed a very heavy labour element.

I know of my own knowledge that the Department of Lands were nervous of this case because there had been failure in some other areas, but I take pride in the fact that 30 "yellow-bellies" triumphed where others failed and that they did it on a voluntary basis. Therefore we can bury past disagreements and invoke some scheme analogous to Scheme B of the land reclamation. I am aware that this scheme was stopped originally because it was badly abused, local authorities abused it or wrong schemes were started, but where a scheme has been proven and has worked and is shown to have worked, I think one can make the analogy with the FEOGA grant at Brussels level. FEOGA give money after the job has been done and one proves that one is right. There is not room for the Minister for Lands to say that this is not really his Department. Let us cut out this lack of co-ordination between Departments, let us cut this business of pigeon-holing and have a little bit of co-operation at the top because we have shown we can do it at the bottom. We have had some minimal co-operation from the county council in Wexford and small and all as it was it has saved a considerable sum in relation to the preservation of roads and access to this part of County Wexford. In its time it will also save the Office of Public Works and the land project section a considerable amount of money. It is cheaper to do it now than in two or three years hence when the price will be three, four or five times as much.

Rural Deputies know that if land is suffering from water-log, originally having been even partly arable, it gets to a point where that land cannot be rescued. This work has been carried out with the blessing of An Foras Talúntais who were consulted. There has been a tremendous amount of voluntary work and co-operation on this project. What we need now is finance to repay the men so that they can go ahead and make further improvements. They made the sacrifice and all we ask is that the appropriate Government Department give something towards it.

There are still another 1,100 acres which will benefit, but not to the same extent as the 600. These 1,100 acres have sometimes been covered by salt water and are reclaimable lands. I have been assured that these lands can be made to grow a crop with the help of modern agricultural science. I am certain that the people on this committee would gladly hand over that land to any Government Department provided they were recompensed for the work they have done. There is not a large sum involved——something in the region of £26,000 to £30,000. They employed labour and used agricultural machinery and paid out of their own pockets. They also paid for fuel. In a heavy engineering project these are very expensive items.

If the Minister can do anything in this line by consultation with his fellow Ministers he will earn the eternal gratitude of a huge area of the agricultural community in south Wexford. When this scheme was first mentioned people jeered and jibed that we would not be able to make it. People told me I was making a fool of myself in helping these people because a legal technicality arose under a statute, but we surmounted that. I was very sorry to see there was a financial shortfall because of inaction on the part of the Government. I should like to have three or four hours to debate this subject.

Mr. Lalor

There is a Standing Order.

Mr. Esmonde

We could amend it, I suppose, and have another committee sitting on it.

The viable size of a holding is 45 acres. How can a farmer be expected to increase his standard of living when one views the earnings in the industrial sector? Under the development farmers' scheme, EEC Directive 159, in order to incorporate land in the development plan, the farmer must show that by taking in extra land he will better himself and reach the target set by the EEC. I discussed this with agricultural instructors. I do not know how much land in terms of adjusted acres the Land Commission are prepared to divide to make a man a viable development farmer, but I think there are grave limitations on this matter by virtue of the fact that the annuity fixed on land allotted is related in some way or other to the purchase price paid for the land by the Land Commission. In one area in Wexford they had to pay £653 an acre. I know of areas in Kildare where they have gone as high as £700 an acre.

When one translates that into terms of an annuity, looks at the problem of the development farmer and adds this extra pricey land to the development farm, I cannot see a development farmer making the target by any stretch of the imagination. As the Land Commission have now sanctioned the principle of let land for the retirement farmer scheme, the term letting with an option to purchase or renewal should be incorporated in relation to land which would be made available to development farmers. This might be a way of getting over this difficult problem which is presenting itself to agricultural advisers who are doing frightful contortions to try to make this scheme work where added land is involved for a development farm.

It is said that 45 adjusted acres is a viable holding. I suppose it is if a man does not want any improvement in his living standard and provided he and his wife do not have a very large family. The 45 adjusted acres can provide a very moderate income for a husband, his wife and two children, if they are to have the same standard of living for which everybody else is striving these days. That is on the assumption that the farmer is in good health and able to manage the land without employing labour. It seems to be a concomitant of the so-called viable holding of 45 acres that one does not employ labour but a holding that can be run by one man. I do not know what is the basis for this 45 acres. Taking one farming family with another my view is that one would need to have 60 adjusted acres—by "adjusted acres" I mean good arable land that one can put a plough into——to reach the target.

On the question of eligibility for land, we know that you have got to be a congest, you have got to have land or you have got to be somebody who is employed as a herd on an estate which was acquired by the Land Commission. I can see no reason for the continuation of the rule that a landless man is not entitled to land. There are many cases in my constituency.

An Ceann Comhairle

Might I ask the Deputy if he would move the adjournment of the debate?

Mr. Esmonde

Might I be told how much longer I have got?

An Ceann Comhairle

Approximately 25 minutes.

Debate adjourned.