Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 15 Nov 1974

Vol. 275 No. 10

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).

When this debate was adjourned last week I had been dealing with the matter of the size of a viable holding and eligibility for land. I had queried the policy that has obtained to date under which landless people are not entitled to land. This is giving rise to considerable hardship in certain areas of agricultural activity. In my constituency there are a great many people who have been virtual farmers for very many years and who have carried on their farming activities by taking lettings of land, in some instances quite substantial lettings. I am talking about people who rent approximately 50 acres per annum. These people have shown themselves competent farmers in practical terms. They carry stock over the winter. They carry on farming activities for the full 12 months each year. They have invested in machinery. They do not limit their activities merely to the taking of grass. Where circumstances permit, these people should be brought into the category of those who are eligible for an allocation of land when land is being divided by the Land Commission. As matters stand, they can be regarded as a section of society somewhat discriminated against. I am, of course, fully aware that the demand for land far exceeds the supply. There are instances in local areas where estates are being divided of farmers of the kind I am talking about who have reared their families on their agricultural activities, who have, in fact, derived their livelihoods from farming. They have proved themselves competent managers of viable farms. Because of the ever-escalating price of land they are now finding themselves in a difficult position.

Deputy Allen commented adversely on the slow progress in the determination of retirement applications. I am in disagreement with his view in this regard. Sometimes a title may be very complex and may require straightening out before land can be vested. This naturally gives rise to delay. The title is not always too clear despite the operations of the Land Registry. People sometimes do not observe all the requirements. They do not take the steps necessary to put the title right on each fall of a life or change of generation in ownership. This can give rise to considerable delay.

I should like now to refer to a comment made by the Minister in his introductory statement. Dealing with the sum of £28,000 for legal expenses in relation to the costs involved by the Land Commission in the acquisition of land, the Minister said at column 568 of Volume 275 of the Official Report:

It reflects the increase in the number of cases that are being contested in the Land Commission at acquisition stage and before the Appeal Tribunal on the question of price.

It is only natural that this situation should arise. It will probably continue to arise in a more aggravated form because the Land Commission is now acquiring land from Irish nationals. Previously the preponderance of land acquired was acquired from foreign landowners. We are dealing now with a somewhat different set-up and with a different attitude of mind. It is very important that every effort should be made where lands are being acquired to deal with the matter on a cash basis. Enough has been said about the history of land bonds. All of us are aware of the high depreciation in land bonds. One has only to look at the financial pages of the daily papers to see where land bonds originally issued at £100 now stand. It is only natural that people who are having land acquired compulsorily will fight against having their land taken from them in return for land bonds.

There is, too, a tradition in regard to land. Land is almost as sacred to us as our religion and our national aspirations. The tendency is to hold on to land as long as one possibly can. No matter how poor the holding is the owner finds it very hard to part with it. There is always the hope that things will improve, that the holding will be improved and the farmer can better himself, perhaps by adding to the holding or in some other way. The tendency is to hold on to the family holding.

The Minister is dealing with the question of the purchase of land for cash. There appears to be a slight suspicion of some difficulty in that regard. Possibly, because of inflation, the price given for land in the private sector has made it difficult for the Land Commission to acquire land at anything near what the Land Commission would regard as a realistic price. I appreciate the difficulties because, if the Land Commission pays a high price per acre, that high price will be reflected in the amount of the annuity to be paid by the person to whom the land is allotted. Since this is in the nature of a national investment the Land Commission should have another look at the basis on which the annuity is assessed. I have commented already, somewhat adversely, on the inflationary effect of the rents obtained by the Land Commission for lands they let on the actual price of land. If one puts up the rent one ultimately puts up the capital value because there is a relationship between income derived from land and the capital price.

The Minister referred to buildings erected by the Land Commission. Costs have greatly increased in the building sector and these are reflected in the costs which have to be met by the Land Commission. In the not too distant past there was an inclination on the part of farmers in general to over-invest in expensive buildings. This is bound to be reflected in the type of buildings the Land Commission erect on holdings prepared for new owners. The Land Commission should carefully scrutinise the amount invested in farm buildings. This is a matter that should be kept under constant review to avoid unnecessary costs being visited on the new tenant. I believe fewer farm buildings should be erected in the first instance, confined to fundamentals and necessities. Once the new owner had become established the Land Commission could possibly come in again at a later stage and erect more buildings. Erecting buildings in the first instance is to some extent prejudging the type of farming that will be carried on. We are in an age of specialisation. In one year a farmer may specialise in one particular type of farm and in the following year he may switch to another type of farming because of rapid changes and market movements.

A great deal has been said repeatedly about the delays that occur in the acquisition and subsequent allocation of land. The Minister told us the total area of land in the acquisition machine at 31st March this year was 79,500 acres. Allotments for the year amounted to 35,600 acres, approximately half what was in the acquisition machine. What really concerns farmers is the fact that the Land Commission seem to acquire land and then hold on to it for an undue length of time. The Minister has done his best to speed up this matter. While it is no reflection on him or his Department, I feel a pair of spurs could be taken out again and a further impetus given to the speed of allocation of land. It is terrible to see a farmer badly in need of extra land having to pay inordinately high rents in order to keep his holding viable while large areas of land available for allocation are in the possession of the Land Commission. I am unable to understand why there has been this delay.

In other areas where there is compulsory acquisition once the acquisition order has been made there is nothing to prevent the acquiring authority moving in and dealing with the land. Matters of compensation can follow later. That principle has been clearly established under the compulsory acquisition code here and in England. I do not see why one must wait interminably for all matters to be clear before the land is subsequently allocated.

This is a continuous gripe which has been voiced to me and I am sure to every other rural Deputy by constituents. We have no satisfactory reply to give to them. They have our sympathy. This is giving the Land Commission a very bad image. They should be seen as being on the side of the smallholder who requires extra land. Farmers have got the idea that the Land Commission are not with them. This image must be destroyed if the commission is to make progress. One gets the impression that the Land Commission feel that if they quickly allocate their land the commission might become redundant. It is open to that interpretation. I have heard farmers say that and it is time the commission realised this and did something about it.

I will deal with the purchase of land by non-nationals another day. I now wish to refer to another activity of the Department of Lands and Forestry, wildlife. I am very glad to see that the slobs outside Wexford are being improved and that access facilities have been made for the interested public. This is a wonderful project which will help to give a very good return in relation to the tourist industry. The younger members of our society are taking a very keen interest in the conservation of wildlife.

The 1972-73 report referred to the question of an atlas of breeding birds. This is very essential work. We know there have been changes in the breeding habits and location of wildlife. This has become a matter of concern. Up to now, the conservation of wildlife has been largely a voluntary activity. It is very gratifying to see the Department taking a very serious interest in this matter. I hope this activity will be greatly enlarged.

I mentioned previously that there was a very good programme on RTE, Amuigh Faoin Spéir, in which the younger generation took a very keen interest. It is to be commended for its bilingual approach. It opened certain parts of the country to people living in cities and urban areas who did not know such areas existed. The younger generation are getting very interested in the conservation of wildlife.

I should like to see the Department of Lands becoming more interested in ecology and conservation. Interest should be taken in insect life and in the natural and wild flora. Work in these areas so far has been done by voluntary workers. A considerable amount of work has also been done to our natural and wild flora.

The Department should take a very serious interest in the area known as the Burren, County Clare. I have heard very disturbing reports that unique specimens of flora have been collected, parcelled and sold out of the country. As I understand it, this is a continuous strain on our unique resources. People interested in unique wild flora have always tried to ensure that these plants did not get into the wrong hands. The Burren is suffering from predatory acts. The Department of Lands is the only Department which could do something about this. If they cannot, it is about time new machinery was created for that purpose.

Like most Deputies, I welcome the introduction of the farm retirement scheme under EEC Directive 160. The future of many small farmers is dependent on this scheme, especially at the moment when increased acreage is so necessary and when there is a complete change taking place in farm planning. I believe that the success of such a scheme depends also on public confidence and on the lasting benefits that may accrue.

In every country experience has shown that people do not leave the land mainly for financial reasons. Rural people would have left the land long ago had that been the case. It has been found that they leave the land only under extreme pressure. People who have farmed for the greater part of their lifetime find it very difficult to surrender their land. In many cases it is a heartbreak, seeing their land remain fallow and then being unable to work it. But, seemingly, complete surrender is the most difficult for them.

This directive requires that a farmer either sells his holding or leases it for a minimum of 12 years. I note from the Minister's speech that out of 74 applicants deemed eligible 65 opted to sell to the Land Commission. Outright purchase by the Land Commission would certainly be the most satisfactory arrangement. One would expect also that there would be a worthwhile flow of land under this arrangement. But the leasing arrangement would certainly be favourable to men who would not consider selling in such circumstances. The various farming bodies could help tremendously in ensuring that retired farmers are made to feel still part of the farming scene. They could enrol them as honorary members and involve them in that way.

I asked a question of the Minister regarding the number of applicants under the EEC retirement scheme received from farmers in County Monaghan and the number of applications approved. In the course of the Minister's reply it transpired that 34 applications had been received, two more having been withdrawn later. To date one applicant had been adjudged eligible and three others appear to qualify but a final decision in their cases will not be made until information is available in regard to the development farmers who will purchase or take a lease of those lands. It would be a great pity were there to be any delay in this process. I appreciate that the scheme is in existence for six months only and it takes time to have those cases investigated. Usually when a farmer, after much heart-searching, decides to retire and avail of this retirement scheme he likes his application to be attended to quickly so that the change-over can be effected and he can go into retirement. The time lag involved from the date on which a farmer makes application until his case is finally dealt with can be a great strain on him. I notice with great satisfaction that there will be extra staff provided in the Department inspectorate. This is very necessary and should alleviate delays in distribution. With the farm modernisation scheme having been introduced only recently, one fears that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries might not be in a position to furnish the necessary information regarding development farmers to the Land Commission, especially this year when there was a target of £1,800 per labour unit for a development farmer and in circumstances in which many farmers in different farming developments would be unable to achieve that target. At a time also when there is a fall in farming incomes it could prolong the period within which that information would be made available. Were the Land Commission, with extra staff in its inspectorate and extra officers at its disposal, to undertake a survey of the land availability in various counties in advance, this too would probably eliminate some delays.

I know it will be a heavy task to sell this farm retirement scheme. The Minister will need all the help he can get from the various bodies interested in agriculture. In regard to this scheme I notice also that the Minister has said:

A person is deemed to have farming as his main occupation if he has owned or, where the land is not worked by the owner, occupied the holding continuously for the five years prior to the application and during this period has devoted at least 50 per cent of his time to and derived at least 50 per cent of his earned income from agricultural work on the holding.

It would be a problem to assess this, especially with regard to men with off-farm employment. I hope that the Land Commission will be reasonable with persons, even those who had spent some time in off-farm employment and who hoped to leave farming and make their land available to other small farmers. I hope they will not have very stringent criteria in this respect. After all, the Land Commission's primary function is to provide land for economic farming.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is the letting of land. Where land is let for a number of years we must appreciate that there are legal and other difficulties involved. Very often when large tracts of land are put up for letting on conacre they are taken for the year by some large cattle man, denying the local smallholders land they badly need. This creates problems also in having portions of farms fenced off. I hope the Land Commission will impress on auctioneers the desirability of giving consideration to smallholders so that they would have an opportunity of securing that land on a letting basis from the time it is taken over until it is eventually distributed. At the moment the Land Commission do not seem to be moving in to secure land by public auction. In some instances this is a mistake because there are men, with considerable acreages, poaching land.

The redemption of land bonds has been the subject of much discussion.

Something should be done about this matter, especially those bonds yielding little or no interest. In justice some arrangement should be made for the redemption of the bonds or a transfer to other Government stocks.

With regard to forestry I was disturbed to note the reduction of £160,000 in the provision for land acquisition. This is a sorry situation. The Minister stated that this country is still the most lightly afforested country in the EEC and indeed in Europe. He must treat any cut-back in the area of land acquisition for forestry purposes as a serious matter. If there are legal or other difficulties with regard to the steady supply of land for afforestation the Minister should try to rectify the situation. The amount of private planting for which grants are given is very disappointing. For the year 1973-74 only 608 acres were planted as compared with 741 acres in the previous year.

The Department could do much more to push this form of investment both for its economic value and for the beautification of the countryside. The Minister told us that an EEC directive is being prepared which will provide subvention for private forestry development but not for State afforestation. Even if the directive is altered to include State afforestation, the spirit of the measure is in support of private development. This will give the Minister an opportunity to encourage such development.

Many years ago there was considerable private development in forestry work although a mistake may have been made with regard to the type of trees planted. Probably the trees did not get the care and attention necessary and thus they were slow to reach maturity. Years ago in some areas it was the custom that when a daughter was born a certain amount of tree planting took place in order to provide a dowry for the girl on her marriage. I think the tradition of the dowry has long since passed but it gives an indication of the thinking in former times with regard to the value of timber. Nowadays the price of imported timber is extremely high and private afforestation is very important.

Information regarding the species of trees is available to anyone who is interested in the matter.

It was disturbing to read that 724 acres of forest land valued at £27,500 were destroyed by fire in 1973 and that in April and May this year a further 1,310 acres valued at approximately £52,000 were destroyed. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on whether the opening of State forests to the public has contributed to the increased incidence of fires. I hope that is not so because, like many others, I have enjoyed visiting forest areas. It seems incredible that people would deliberately endanger such places. I hope the Department will conduct a campaign in the schools to impress on children the danger of forest fires and instil in them a sense of responsibility when they visit the forests.

I was pleased to read the Minister's comment on game and wildlife preservation. In Monaghan the State forests are quite small and are surrounded by farmland. There is a good opportunity there to improve the stocking of game by releasing them in State forests. This would keep the birds in the area and would give them protection.

The Minister mentioned that rural Deputies could make their contribution by supporting and advocating the retirement scheme for farmers. He can certainly rely on the support of Deputies in promoting this scheme. He should use all the means at his disposal, even going as far as asking the clergy for their support, to impress on farmers who may be thinking of retiring the desirability of availing of this scheme and thus give the small economic holdings the land that is so badly needed.

I find it difficult to understand some of the regulations of the Land Commission with regard to the allocation of land. Landless people, those who have proved themselves capable farmers and who have for many years taken conacre, find it difficult to qualify for a holding under the Land Commission rules. This is extremely shortsighted. In this connection I have in mind landless people who have been agricultural workers for many years, who have proved themselves capable of managing farms for others, but who are unable for financial reasons to be landowners themselves. Most of the people who are engaged in agriculture, either by way of the conacre system or as agricultural labourers, are striving to become landowners. In most cases these people have the ability to manage land and to derive the best possible results from it. I find it difficult to understand the attitude of the Land Commission towards landless men.

When land is being divided the general rule is that it be allotted to persons within a distance of one mile. That provision may have been all right when horses were used to draw the plough but in today's world of modern machinery and modern means of transport, the one mile limit is ridiculous. I hope that the Land Commission are in the process of making a change in that regard because it militates unfairly in regard to some people. For example, there might be an excellent applicant for land living, say, within two miles of the estate being divided but, because of the rule, the land might be given to a less suitable applicant who happened to be within the one mile limit. That should not be allowed to happen. Each case should be considered on its merits. A distance of up to four miles from a farm would not present any great difficulties nowadays.

The retirement scheme for farmers is good and is well-intentioned but there will be difficulty in enticing the farmers to retire because of the reluctance on the part of our people to relinquish their claim on land and because of their belief that the land should remain in the family. In the context of the retirement scheme, perhaps some encouragement could be given to farmers to transfer lands to members of their families. To most people it would seem to be the normal practice for a person to pass on land to a son but very often old people retain their hold on the land for so long that sons become frustrated and leave home.

Sometimes one wonders about some of the decisions reached by the Land Commission in regard to land division. Some of these decisions are open to question. In respect of every division that takes place there seems to be at least one real surprise in that somebody qualifies whom nobody would have put in the first category of applicants. This results in widespread speculation. Sometimes it is said that political influences were at work. I would not accept that. In any case, I hope it is not true. If there are special reasons why somebody who would appear locally to be an unsuitable candidate is allotted land, those reasons should be made known so as to allay public disquiet.

The question of delays in land division has been raised by other Deputies. I am aware that the Minister is doing everything possible to expedite the division of land but, yet, delays occur. One Deputy put forward the theory here today that the reason for the delays is a fear on the part of the Land Commission of their becoming redundant. That was the first time I had heard that theory expounded. In my part of the country the suspicion is that, in their efforts to recover some of the initial cost, the Land Commission hold on to the land so that they can continue setting it at high rents. Maybe there would be some justification for their doing that if, in the ultimate, it would result in reducing the purchase price. However, anybody who has any knowledge of farming knows that the conacre system is not good in so far as the land is concerned because a person availing of that system is anxious to obtain the best possible return for his expense and, consequently, he is running out the lands.

It would appear that the Land Commission are not active enough in regard to estates that are not being worked to the maximum. If the owner of an estate of, say, 1,000 acres, gets a return of £5 per acre he may be satisfied with his £5,000 but in such cases the Land Commission should have the power of acquisition because, although the land is being worked to some extent, the best possible results are not being derived from it and this is not good for the nation any more than it is good for the owner. I believe the Land Commission should show greater interest in these large estates and farms which are not being worked to their full capacity.

I want to raise one matter in relation to forestry. The Forestry Division of the Department of Lands, as I stated last year, should be involved in the finished product. There are many small industries which depend almost entirely on the Forestry Division for their raw materials. There is a wallboard factory in my town which buy their timber by tender from the Forestry Division. That is the traditional way Government bodies work. This brings people from perhaps County Clare to County Wicklow and people from Wicklow buy timber in County Clare. These people do not know exactly what they are tendering for or what the position is.

Some of these industries now find themselves in the position that their production exceeds their sales. That is not the fault of anybody in the industry but is because of a falling off in the purchasing and selling power of people possibly in the United Kingdom and as far away as Australia where there is a reduction in the sales of these products. The result of all this is that these small industries have a limited cash flow. They have either to pay the Department on the nail or in advance for their raw materials. In most businesses, particularly when you are dealing with builders and the export trade, you have to give up to three months' credit to your customers. These firms should get the same terms from the Department for the timber they buy. We hope this position will improve.

The wallboard firm in my town are not in any financial difficulties but they are worried that they have to pay cash to the Department before getting their supplies while they have to give credit of up to three months to their customers. It is not unreasonable to ask the Department to help them in relation to credit. The Forestry Division is one of the most important of our State undertakings. They should actually be engaged in processing and selling the final product. They put a lot of work into growing trees but when there is a fair return to be got from the timber it is passed on to somebody else. We should have a State industry for our timber products. We should have a ready supply from the Forestry Division to the mills and processing plants.

The Forestry Division give good employment all over the country. I suggested to the Department the making of little cribs and there are many other products which could be made if the Forestry Division got away from red tape. I congratulate the Minister on what he has done in the Land Commission and the Forestry Division. I ask him to consider the few points I have put before him.

In speaking on this Estimate I shall attempt to cover the position of our smallholders and the land they hold as well as that of some of the very big farmers and the use their land is put to. I may have to wander across the line to prove the point, so I hope you will bear with me, Sir. Our smallholders today find themselves in a very difficult position because they have not enough land to give them a good income. In County Kerry, 84 per cent of our land holders have a valuation of £10 and if you take valuation at £1 an acre these smallholders have an average of only ten acres. With rising costs and the direction agriculture is taking at the moment, they are getting very little out of their land.

I remember the period from 1924 to 1936 when the yellow meal flowed into this country. Those smallholders were better off then because they were able to fatten pigs in large numbers and produce large quantities of eggs for export. In my own town in those days, ten ten-ton wagons of eggs were sent out every week.

Today we can scarcely buy an egg in Killorglin. This is typical of the change that has affected production from our land which is the great national asset we have. The hesitancy of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries has led our people away from the natural trend of producing sufficient food for the animals they have. We went to the extreme of trying to carry one cow to the acre and nowhere more than in Kerry did this prevail with the result that we now have no food for our cattle. We have exceptionally good land and there must be a place for smallholders in the production of food. If these smaller farmers were directed into the growing of root crops to help feed our cattle, the best use will be made of the land. Too often we have depended on foreigners to grow the fodder we need for our cattle. We have to import large quantities of grain and other foodstuffs. Very few grow the beet and other fodder that fed our cattle well in other days.

Boglands are ideal for this type of root crop and I think this is the sort of production into which the smallholders should be encouraged. Unfortunately, the Departments of Lands and Agriculture and Fisheries which should be interlinked, go it alone, so to speak. Both Department should be fully co-ordinated so as to get the maximum out of the land. In Kerry now we are trying to get work in a factory or elsewhere for the very smallholders which would help them to maintain their position producing something and at the same time bringing in a weekly wage. This does not get the maximum from the land.

If the Mansholt Plan, which would take all those people off the land, is developed we are no better off. In times of economic stress such as we seem to be experiencing at present, the land always maintained our people. Even if they had to eat bread without butter they did it and on each occasion we raised ourselves from the economic depression and got back on the open road towards prosperity. If we have driven along this road at a fast pace in the past 15 or 20 years, it is obvious we have now come to the end of it and the greatest economic depression ever to face our farmers has arrived or is arriving. This arises because of the extreme doctrine of putting all our eggs in one basket. We went to the extreme in regard to milk in Kerry and this meant producing cattle with the result that we now have three years' cattle on the holdings where there is not sufficient to feed one lot of animals. Unfortunately, last May farmers who had two- and two-and-a-half-year-old cattle they had hoped to sell had to graze the land which would produce hay and silage leaving them without any at present.

The signs must now be surely clear to the Departments of Lands and Agriculture and Fisheries that it is essential for them to get together and have an overall body to direct people along lines of production that would free us from the need to import what we can produce at home and also leave us free from fluctuating prices abroad. This attitude should have been adopted long ago and particularly three or four years ago when the signs of trouble appeared. Instead, we rode merrily along until we rode our greatest asset, our farmers, into the ground. But if we can get the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Land Commission to get together and decide what can be produced and ensure that more than sufficient is available for our livestock, it is still not too late. This should be possible. It could have been made easier by earlier action but I believe it can still be done now. We must resurrect our people from their present position. The land is not being used as it should be used. There must be re-thinking about the general use of our land.

I have mentioned that the smallholders must find work because they cannot produce enough at home. At the same time we have large holdings let in conacre. That may be a national asset but anybody who takes land to knock everything he can out of it is not utilising the land to the best purpose. There must be a general re-thinking if our land asset is to be developed to the maximum so as to maintain us in times of economic distress as well as in times of prosperity. We are short of grain this year but we still have broad acres which can produce grain. The smallholdings and even boglands can produce a good deal of root crops that would help to feed our livestock. It is not asking too much of the two great Departments I have mentioned that they should encourage such a development in regard to the production of foodstuffs.

We have advisory services that run away with one idea and when they find that has gone wrong they then try to direct the people into another area. Some of the monuments to the craziness of that procedure can be found going back ten or 15 years ago in the circular silage pits along the roadside. They were supposed to be the be-all and end-all but after a year or two that system was found to be uneconomic and we came to the ordinary square pit. Eventually, we found that a pit dug in the ground without walls was ideal. Then the silage pit went into the hayshed. Finally we changed to the build-up over the ground covered with plastic sheets. If this is an example of where our people can be led by the Department, the sooner it stops the better. In my county considerable sums have been spent on developing farmyards and milking parlours. Cows are no longer an asset.

The Deputy is now discussing something that is a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

I believe the Departments of Lands and Agriculture and Fisheries must be intertwined. I am trying to make the point that we should make the maximum use of land and this is not being done. We are very far from producing what could be produced. It must be clear today that more attention must be given to the land if it is to produce the food we need.

One of our greatest drawbacks is the flooding of land by mountain streams and small rivers. The Minister should be pressing for their drainage. We have the big arterial drainage schemes but the smaller schemes should get priority. Far too much of our land is affected by such small streams and very little money would correct them as compared with the amount used on arterial drainage. The Minister would be well advised to have this question examined. I know it is not handled by his Department but I believe it should be. His interest is to see that lands are properly kept.

As regards the division of land I do not agree that people living more than a mile away or even within a mile should get an allotment. Land that is to be allotted should be given to adjoining farmers if they are suitable. I do not think it is a good thing to give a field or two to each of ten people. It would be better to try to make one or two viable holdings.

Recently I tabled a question about the allotment of a playing field to the Firies GAA Club when a holding was being divided in the area. The Minister replied that there were four small congests there and that provision could not be made for the Firies Club. It is the first occasion in my time in the Dáil that I made an application for land from any holding and it was not granted. It is vitally important to keep our young people together in the rural areas and there is no better way of doing this in a farming area than by the provision of a playing field. I would like to know whether the Minister and his Department have the power to acquire land for this purpose. I had an idea that the Department had this power but perhaps I am wrong. I cannot understand the Minister's decision in this case. The Firies Club is an historic one in that the captain of the first Kerry team that ever played in an all-Ireland was a Firies man, the Champion O'Sullivan. The tradition is still there today. In other years they were able to rent a field through the goodness of their neighbours but with the great need for grass today they cannot get a field to rent. I would ask the Minister to try, even at this stage, to provide land for this club.

I take it the drainage of boglands is dealt with by the Minister's Department. This is something that needs urgent attention. Because of the high cost of coal, gas and fuel oil people are anxious to get back into the bogs but many bogs are flooded and cannot be used. The Minister should press for the provision of moneys for this worthwhile work. If we can get our people to use the bogs again we will be doing something worthwhile for the nation by preventing the importation of coal, fuel oil and so on, which are bearing so heavily on us at present.

I do not think the farm retirement scheme, good as it is—I compliment the Minister on it—is sufficiently attractive for Kerry people. The farmer in Kerry has had the idea down through the years that he should hand down the little bit of land and that if he does not do so he will be told in the next world when he meets his forbears: "You sold your heritage". Very few, if any, will be interested in this pension scheme.

Cavan): All the same, we have had 52 applications from Kerry already.

It is a very small number but I am glad to see it. I have complimented the Minister on the scheme but I cannot see Kerry farmers going wild for it. Traditionally they like to pass on their little bit of land to their families and that, in a way, is as good.

I am sorry to see the reducing trend in afforestation. This is an area which gives good employment to middle-aged people who would not get jobs in industry. From that point of view alone there should be an increase rather than a reduction in afforestation. More acquisition of land for forestry would mean taking more people off the dole and I advise the Minister to continue the Department's efforts in this direction. I suggest that there will be more mountain land available after the disastrous year mountain sheep farmers have had.

The breeding of game is very important. I saw the breeding station two years ago and I thought it would be a great asset if this could be done in Kerry. It would attract winter tourists to mountain areas in the off season. I suggest that stocks of game birds should be increased through Departmental efforts. It is not a very costly procedure and the economic returns would be great.

I have covered most of the points I wanted to make. I again urge on the Minister to set about linking up all the Departments associated with land so as to develop this great natural asset to the maximum. Apart from the financial income it would bring it would mean a reduction of imports which are crippling us at the moment. Rather than have one Department flying off on hairbrained schemes, all Departments associated with land should be linked up to make the most of this great asset.

I spoke in this debate last year, in particular on the question of commonages in the west, with special reference to west Mayo. I urged the necessity for division of such commonages, particularly in lowland areas. I am glad to be able to say today that there has been considerable activity in the meantime and I should like to compliment the Minister on it.

In north-west Mayo, the Erris area, there is an area involving small farms and a very high proportion of reasonably good land has been traditionally farmed in commonages. There was agitation there because there did not appear to be any incentive for individual farmers properly to manage commonages, from the point of view of fertilising and stocking, because of the unsatisfactory ownership situation. In recent times the Minister's officers have been particularly active in processing applications from commonage tenants and division has taken place in two or three major areas.

I should like to stress that what has taken place, although very welcome, is merely the start of the type of activity which, shall I say, must be escalated, because there are substantial areas of such land in need of division. In the Department there are many more applications than the Department are staffed to handle and I would urge the Minister to arrange that considerably more interest is taken in this area. As I have said, at least it is in the development area. While land division in general involves static situations, substantial development is needed in regard to commonages to improve stocking rates and fertilisation.

On the question of commonage division a problem has arisen of which the Minister is aware. For example, there may be a commonage of 500 or 600 acres shared by, perhaps, 24 farmers. In many instances 19 or 20 such farmers are anxious for division but for one reason or another there is a very small majority of 10 per cent or less who refuse to give assent to division. This is causing a good deal of public disquiet in the area I have been speaking about.

I suggest the Minister should be very firm in dealing with this matter. It seems to me that the legal position in regard to dissent is such that the Minister has certain compulsory purchase powers and the Department should move vigorously. Obviously a certain point is reached at which there is not jurisdiction to divide such areas. Where the minority objection is very small the Minister should, if necessary, use the powers he has to erase the division. This would be in the interests of the vast majority of the farmers concerned. It would also be in the national interest. Where considerable objection is being taken to EEC farm policies in small farming areas and where farmers are being pushed under, under various directives, to earn the minimum amount necessary to enable them to keep pace with the income opportunities which exist for their friends in the town and cities, the division of land should be vigorously pursued.

The remarks I want to make about the Forestry Division are not really about the activities of the division but rather about the forestry policy of the Department and the Government. I refer particularly to the extent to which the forestry industry is developed both by the Government, through the Forestry Division, and by private enterprise as compared with the situation obtaining in most other countries. We have by far the highest proportion of forestry development in the hands of the State. The extent of forestry development by private interests is infinitesimal and ranks as a tiny percentage of the total. This is in contrast with the situation which exists in Norway, a country which has always had a strong forestry arm in its economy and where the proportion of private forestry development, speaking from memory, is over 50 per cent.

We have missed a trick over the years in trading policy by not encouraging to a much greater degree private forestry development and private industry based on forestry. I say that for a number of reasons. It is obvious that there is suitable land for acquisition by the Forestry Division for planting trees, but it is equally obvious that for a number of reasons, mostly those of scale, there is a great deal of land which forms part of the farms of individual farmers extremely suitable for planting trees and unsuitable for more remunerative agricultural use. A serious look should be taken at this problem and a serious analysis should be made of why farmers have availed to a very small degree of the grants available for planting trees from the Department over the years.

I know the scale of grants increased about a year or 18 months ago but I believe it is necessary to increase the grants to a higher level still to get greater participation. It is fashionable today to speak of cost/benefit analysis in attempting to decide whether or not work should be done. This methodology is adopted in the Office of Public Works in regard to major drainage schemes. If one applies a cost/benefit analysis to forestry one finds that very considerable progress can be made in the private area if sufficient incentives are given.

There is a side issue to this question of forestry. Certain parts of the country have been made much more scenically interesting through the work of the Forestry Division. I compliment them on that. Those parts of our country which were denuded of trees where the Forestry Division have been doing substantial work over the years are now areas of great beauty. We are told that historically our country was a country of sylvan beauty. That is not the position today to a fraction of the extent to which it was true in bygone days or a fraction of the extent to which it exists in some other countries. A definite policy in the private farming sector would ultimately remedy this situation. We talk a great deal about the environment and the quality of life. Private afforestation would have a most beneficial effect in the long term. It would also be in the national interest. Investigations should be made into this area with a view to increasing dramatically, if possible, the proportion of involvement in the planting of trees and the development of forests by private interests.

Reverting to the Department of Lands and the question of land acquisition and division, there is an aspect of this work which does not relate to lands but which is causing considerable disquiet. I refer to the houses on land acquired by the Department of Lands. We are living in an era of very high cost housing and in an era when people are tending to marry at a younger age. Now the income levels in the farming community are less than they are in other sections of the community and this poses very serious housing problems for many young farmers who want to get married. On land acquired by the Land Commission houses are left derelict, houses which, when the land was acquired, were in good condition and quite habitable. The land is let by the Land Commission but, in many instances, the houses are left idle. We know what happens to houses when they are left in that condition. Many houses have deteriorated and eventually, when the land is disposed of by the Land Commission, it is too late to do anything about the houses. This involves a cost to the country. While those houses are falling into disrepair there are young people living on adjoining farms who want to get married and, if these houses were available, they would be very suitable.

I appreciate that this is not entirely a matter for the Department of Lands and that they must work with the local authority. I understand it is not a policy of the Department to allocate these houses to individuals unless the land is being taken over by somebody who intends to use the house. It is possible that the initiative in this should come from the local authority rather than from the Department but I would urge greater liaison between the Department and the local authorities when the land is acquired. That is the time for the Department to decide what they intend to do with the lands and what the position is in regard to the houses. An inventory should be taken of the condition of the houses and the county council should be notified that these houses are available. Some attempt should be made to arrange that such houses will be lived in.

I know this will present problems if it is intended to allocate the land. At the initial stage, it should be possible to decide whether the allottees will inhabit the houses eventually; if there is a possibility that this will be the eventual outcome, there is no necessity to consult with the local authority. If it is 90 per cent certain that a house will not be lived in by the person to whom the land is allotted, then steps should be taken immediately and the house should be allocated speedily under contract through the local authority.

I am glad the Minister referred to his retirement scheme and the extent to which it has been successful. It has been more successful than any previous scheme, and I do not say that in any narrow political sense. The Minister has the advantage of having a subvention from European sources to help him in this regard and the benefits are substantially greater than they were previously. Basically, I find myself in agreement with Deputy O'Connor who talked about the farmer meeting his forefathers in the place to which he goes and being accused of having sold out his birthright. There is this problem about land which is very close to the heart of country people and there is probably a limit to which a retirement scheme will be successful.

I am aware of a bachelor farmer of about 55 years of age living in a very congested area who wanted to avail of this scheme and wanted to sell his land to avail of the bonus and the pension. He applied and eventually he received a curt letter from the Department stating that he was not eligible for the scheme without spelling out the reasons. I gather that that case is under review. It is an isolated case and I am glad to say that, in general, the Department seem to be acting very speedily on applications for this retirement scheme.

Deputies from the west make many representations on the question of land division. There are a great many myths connected with this activity. The criteria are laid down by the Department and implemented by the Land Commission. I believe they have an obligation to talk to any farmer living within one square mile of the land proposed to be divided. The myth of patronage and everything associated with it is greater on the question of land division than in any other area. It would be a good idea if the Minister would occasionally spell out the reality of the situation and refer to the criteria and the methods adopted by the Land Commission on land division.

I regret that at present there does not seem to be any possibility of farmers in the west getting land in the eastern parts of the country, thereby relieving congestion. There must be a serious problem in this area because of the economics of land purchase in this age. There are farmers who have fragmented farms and, if they could be accommodated with a single unit in the east or the south, there would be the resulting benefit to them that they would not have fragmented farms, and congestion would be relieved.

At the outset I spoke about the question of commonages. There is a tremendous benefit to be gained for the nation by the division of suitable land. The strongest action possible should be taken by the Minister to arrange the division of commonages as soon as possible and as a matter of urgency where the tenants are agreeable. Where a tiny proportion of farmers are not agreeable, the Minister should push with the utmost vigour and, if necessary, invoke the sanctions which he has the authority to invoke. I should like to compliment the Minister on his speech and I look forward to seeing progress in the areas to which I have referred.

I should like to avail of this opportunity to raise with the Minister and put on the records of the House a few of the problems which one meets in one's everyday life pertaining to the functions of the Land Commission. Before I go on to deal with specific problems, I should like to say that the Minister is working under capacity and could take on and carry out many important duties in relation to rural Ireland.

The environment is causing considerable concern and is attracting a good deal of attention. This will be increasingly so in the years immediately ahead. The Minister for Lands could take on duties which are at present assigned to other Departments in relation to the environment and the whole question of land which is inextricably bound up with the cultural and social life of the country. Planning as it relates to rural Ireland, drainage, accommodation roads, are problems which are of tremendous importance to the people of rural Ireland.

The real Ireland is the Ireland west of the Shannon and, people who seek to find a solution for what they call congestion, are merely applying the remedies of the old Congested District Boards which in their day, did a reasonably good job but would be completely outmoded now. The Congested District Boards had methods for relieving congestion at a time when we were taught and believed that Ireland was just an agricultural country for feeding its neighbouring island, and had neither mineral resources nor any likelihood of industrial development. Industrial development reached the breakthrough stage long ago and has now come to be accepted as one of the important arms of the economy.

The problem of relieving congestion in the west of Ireland is not now as serious as it may have been in the past if it is tackled in the proper way. Therefore, the Minister for Lands should have involvement in, if not complete responsibility for, the allocation of industry to the west and in the provision of off-farm employment, which is really needed in the west. He should have the responsibility of ensuring the preservation of the environment, a special interest in the flora and fauna and generally an interest in the preservation of a society and a culture which distinguishes Ireland from other countries. I should like to see this type of activity added to the Department of Lands, which in my view, is under capacity at the moment. The Minister is one of the few who has a rural background. He has his feet more firmly on the ground than his colleagues. He would be the man most capable of looking after a Department of Lands which has more responsibility.

If a politician were to go around his constituency in the west one of the most common complaints he would hear would be about the lack of accommodation roads. We talk a lot about what should be done for the west. In fact, we neglect even the most elementary amenities. If we are serious in making the west a better place in which to live we should ensure that roads which service eight or ten houses are in a fit state for use. At the moment many of these people must wear Wellington boots when using these roads. The amount of money made available for these roads is infinitesimal.

Because of the fuel shortage this year most of these roads served boglands as well as the residential areas. Not one penny extra has been provided this year although millions of pounds were needed. Many people provided their own fuel from the bogs. The turf was removed by tractor in most cases. A tractor can be used almost anywhere, even where there are no roads. The people brought out the fuel on the tractors, with the result that the roads are in a deplorable state. One road of 20 approved by the engineers of the local authority is being repaired.

I urge the Minister to insist that of the many thousands of pounds being spent on other less important things, some could be diverted to making useful roads. If we are serious about doing something for the west we should come to grips with the ESB and the treatment they are meting out to the people there.

That is not relevant on this Estimate.

I am trying to develop the point that the Department of Lands should assume responsibility for work which is at present being done, or supposed to be done, by other Departments, and is not.

(Cavan): The Deputy is getting into an Adjournment debate.

The Minister should have powers which would occupy him to even near-full capacity. He could devote himself to the problems coming to his Department. This would have a tremendous bearing on the lives of the people in the west. The Department of Lands should co-operate with at least six other Departments and take over some of the work they are doing. For instance, they should take over from Local Government all things directly or indirectly associated with the environment, the making of roads, drainage and water schemes. They should take from the Department of Transport and Power the ESB. The Department of Lands would then be doing something useful.

The Deputy has been ranging wide of the Estimate. The Chair has given him a lot of latitude. Deputies may not advocate the widening of Minister's functions on an Estimate. This would require legislation and legislation may not be advocated. This is the rule of the House. The Deputy has had a fair innings.

With due respect to the Chair, he is merely quoting precedent rather than rule. There is nothing in Standing Orders which prevents a suggestion that a Minister should be more fully occupied. I paid the Minister the compliment of saying that he was capable of accepting greater responsibilities. If the Chair prevents me from developing that subject, I will not go back on it. I would like to see the Department of Lands doing work more directly associated with the preservation of life in rural Ireland.

What I have outlined to the Deputy is the strict procedure of the House. I have given him a lot of latitude.

There is not sufficient co-operation between the Department of Lands and the Forestry Division. The forestry outlook seems to be "plant and be damned". The Land Commission try to get land. We are very pleased with the work of the Forestry Division. The forestry people frequently take over a farm which comprises different types of land, arable and grazing—sometimes poor quality grazing. Usually there is a fair amount of arable land for pasturage. The adjoining farmer may have a similar type of farm. I have always advocated that the Forestry Division should exchange with the adjoining farmer the arable land they have taken over for the rougher grazing for which he has not much use. I succeeded in a few cases but I had great difficulty in getting them to effect such an exchange. Sometimes a financial adjustment may be needed. This could be arranged. If this were done it would mean that the Department and the Forestry Division were co-operating.

In cases where the Land Commission have acquired land and the Forestry people have land in the same area a good co-operative job could be done in ascertaining what is best of the arable portion of both lands and have it distributed amongst the people who need it. In that way the less suitable pasture land will be utilised and which the Forestry people will succeed in planting anyway. I know the Forestry people like to get good land. But they do make a reasonably good job of old, rough, mountainous land once it has been torn up by a tractor and the necessary fertiliser used to get young trees started. Sitka spruce thrives now in most places where years ago we would not have expected to grow any type of tree. I would appeal for more cooperation between the two in the interests of the local farmer.

I am not going to engage in a long discussion with regard to the manner of allocation of land by the Land Commission. But I sometimes think, when I see land that has been allocated, that it has been done by people who seem to have been bereft of any knowledge of what are local farming conditions. This has been cited in this House a thousand times. Land is taken over. It is not distributed for ages. It is let to somebody who does not need it. It is not benefiting anybody with a land shortage. The local land grabber succeeds in most cases in taking it. Then, after years, it comes round to the allocating of that land. That is not good business. Very seldom does it seem to go to the person in need of it or who would make the best use of it.

I heard of a case of which the Minister knows also of a young man with a family, who had been reared on land and who had no land of his own except the use of his father-in-law's farm for the time being. I do not like mentioning individual cases but they are useful sometimes by way of illustration. When that young man went to buy the farm concerned he found that the Land Commission had a lien on it. Do you think they would let him have it? No. He had gone to the Agricultural Credit Corporation for sanction for the money with which to purchase it. But there was not a hope for that young man, with his wife and family, who was really anxious to get working on that farm. He was told: It cannot be done; we have put our eye on that and that is the end of it. That is the sort of incident that gives the Land Commission a bad reputation and causes people to lose confidence in them.

The Minister is totally removed from this; he is entirely independent. There has been a lot of discussion recently about the powers that public men should or should not have. I think the Minister should seek the power he has not got as yet, subject to the sanction of this House. There could be the usual 21-day order placed before the House, which would help in the final sanction of the allocation of land. Even if he gave it to his Fine Gael friends, it might be just as well done as by the Land Commission.

(Cavan): He certainly would not be working under capacity then.

It would not take a lot of time, really. I do not know whether or not it is relevant at this stage to ask the Minister to do something about the Land Registry Office for God's sake.

(Cavan): That is not my Department. It is the responsibility of the Department of Justice.

We still call it the Justice registration office. Even though it may be the responsibility of the Department of Justice, the Minister for Lands should have some sympathy in his professional capacity for the torture farmers go through awaiting registration of title. Sometimes the person who has been registered is dead before the registration goes through and the whole process has to be gone over again. Of course, the legal profession might be as much to blame in some cases as is the Land Registry Office. However, I shall not stress the point other than to say that the Minister ought be concerned about the hardships it is inflicting on the people he represents in his capacity as Minister for Lands.

The Forestry people have moved with great strides in the beautification of the countryside—forest walks and developments of that kind, which is an excellent thing. I have been pressing for them to do some more of this type of work. I know it is a question of money and Forestry does require more money. At the moment, when we are facing rising unemployment, one of the means by which the numbers on the unemployment register could be reduced would be by investing more money in afforestation. There are parcels of land available for development throughout the country. For example, in areas such as Pettigo in County Donegal on the Border— the shop window of the county—they have become accustomed to constant employment in forestry over a long period. The near cessation of that work now will seriously affect the economy of the area. With the huge number of acres now under plantation surely the Minister will take a personal interest in that area so near to his home by ensuring that some extra finance is expended on forest walks, or in establishing a centre, like the one at Boyle, which would give new life to the district, create a new focal point and be an example to those people on the other side of the stream in what is known as Northern Ireland.

Quite candidly, I am worried about this area because the people there have become accustomed to employment of that type and where some beautiful work has been carried out. For example, the whole landscape around Lough Derg has been changed. There is now a nice view for the pilgrims and it could be improved considerably if the necessary amount were spent in creating a nice forest, scenic area adjacent to lakes, with mountain scenery. I am sure the local people would respond by doing the other things necessary to make it popular. That is the type of thing I should like to see the Minister for Lands doing. It would have a direct bearing on the so-called congested areas of the west.

The pension scheme will never be terribly popular. It will be taken up by the occasional person who is interested such as the bachelor who is not feeling so well who owns a small farm and who wants to live more easily. But, by and large, the practice of Irish people has been always to own their own homes, to have a stake in the country, to stick by that piece of land. The best way in which we can help them fulfil that practice is to give them part-time off the land employment. Otherwise the EEC pension scheme is quite good but it is one which would lead ultimately to the de-population of the west. The scheme was conceived in the centre of Europe by people with little or no knowledge of the conditions in the west of Ireland or the direction in which we should like to see those conditions improved.

The other point I wanted to impress on the Minister was that of the acquisition of land in the west originally occupied by emigrants. In the west we have gone through a tough time in the last century in the matter of emigration. All of us remember many sad scenes of the last families clearing out. In a good many cases little farms were left derelict and the doors locked. These people made good abroad. Then conditions at home began to improve rapidly.

It is always the ambition of these people to return and live in the old home but frequently the Land Commission move in and take it because it is a derelict holding. Very often a relation of the emigrant wants to come back to his parent's holding but the land and the home are no longer available. There should be special regard for the exceptional circumstances of those who emigrated, to ensure that the land is left for them so long as there is a hope of their returning. We owe that to them. In the past we could not give them any hope of a livelihood and they were forced by economic conditions to leave the country. This was a time when the scourge of TB and emigration were wiping out the countryside and many holdings were left derelict. Nowadays we get letters from America, Australia and other places from people inquiring about their parents' holdings and we are obliged to tell them the Land Commission have acquired them. The Minister should ensure that special attention is given to cases of this kind, that so long as there is a hope of the emigrants or their relations returning to repossess the holdings they should be left for them.

The Minister has not sufficient work to do but there are many tasks he could carry out. Now, there is much emphasis on environment—I realise the Ceann Comhairle does not wish me to advocate——

The Deputy is aware of my ruling.

I am merely advocating that the Minister should take over a considerable amount of work that is more relevant to the Department of Lands. He could do a worthwhile job for the preservation of our culture and way of life where it is still unspoiled and intact.

I must confess I am disappointed that the Minister has not shown any new initiative so far as his Estimate is concerned but one can hardly blame him because he is working within a rather confined area. Our land is our greatest natural resource and when we consider the authority and the powers of the Minister it is a sad reflection on the House that during the years the Department of Lands have been so limited in their activities.

At the moment the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries are responsible for drainage work. The Department of Finance control major projects such as arterial schemes. The Department of Local Government in a small way undertake land drainage schemes. The Department of Justice are responsible for certain aspects of Land Registry. Where there is fragmentation of effort it is not possible to have any proper planning to ensure that the best use is made of the land. I hope that the Government will consider this aspect. As Deputy Brennan pointed out, the range of work allocated to the Minister for Lands might be broadened. I realise I may be going outside the scope of the present debate but the point is worth making.

We will have additional funds available from the EEC Regional Fund. It will be necessary to make arrangements for one Department to be responsible for the development of the land. I know that during the years the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries have done their work fairly efficiently in regard to this matter but it is ridiculous that so many Departments are dealing with this aspect of our development.

There will be a more specialised form of land development and farming in the EEC. If there is a fragmentation of effort it will be extremely difficult to achieve the best results. Farmers will respond if they get a lead and guidance from the top to obtain the maximum benefit from the land. They may revert to tillage or they will do what they think is in the interests of farming generally. There must be proper planned development. I would ask the Minister to ensure that his Cabinet colleagues re-examine the whole question so that we may get the best possible return from our greatest natural resources. As I said during the Estimate debate last year, all our land should be considered in terms of its potentiality. Because of modern methods and techniques it can be said that we have no bad land. Even our worst land—bogland and so on— can be made productive.

I would support Deputy Staunton's call to the Minister to continue with the division of commonage so that more land will be made available to many small landowners, particularly in my part of the country. The additional 20 or 25 acres which become available in this way is the difference for a small farmer in the west between survival and emigration. While we are aware that farmers are going through a very lean period we look forward to the time when conditions will improve. In the meantime any additional acreage which can be given to small farmers will be of immense benefit to them. The Land Commission are endeavouring to speed up land division but from time to time they encounter problems—for instance, there may be a person who for some selfish reason holds up a division. I hope that steps will be taken to ensure that, where a majority of tenants are in favour of division, no undue delay will occur.

Forestry has taken on a new dimension. The Forestry Division are acquiring lands now which 20 or 25 years ago would not have been taken up by them for planting. In this area, too, one encounters problems when local tenants, perhaps hill farmers, who graze the land think that it would be more beneficial to them to retain the lands for grazing purposes rather than to sell them to the Forestry Division. Very often there can be strained relations between the Forestry Division and the holders of land that they wish to acquire. This situation is due to some extent to sheep having become more valuable in recent times so that the farmers are reluctant to part with their grazing lands. However, when problems of this nature arise, every effort should be made to have the closest possible liaison between the Department of Lands and the Forestry Division. In this way it might be possible to avoid trouble with local farmers when planting is carried out.

Perhaps the Minister would let me know whether we have applied to the EEC for funds for afforestation projects. I understand that such funds are available, and on the 30th October I had a question to the Minister in this regard. Unfortunately I was unable because of other commitments to be present in the House on the day the question was due to be taken and, consequently, was not able to follow up the answer by way of supplementary questions. However, in a written reply the Minister stated that no grants from the fund had been paid for forestry projects to persons in Ireland. I should like the Minister to tell me whether grants have been paid to other countries and to let me know also why grants have not been paid to Ireland in respect of forestry projects.

Perhaps, too, the Minister would let us know when we can expect personnel from the Department of Lands to move to Castlebar. Have inquiries been made in the Department as to the personnel who are likely to be transferred? My reason for seeking this information is that the local urban council and the development authority in the area would like to have some indication as to what is the situation so that they can plan to cater for the people who are expected to go to Castlebar.

The Department have been very successful in their efforts to preserve wild life. In this respect they are in close liaison with Bord Fáilte. However, there is one disturbing feature in relation to wild life preservation. One hears of foreigners coming here and going wholesale for the slaughter of game. I ask the Minister to consult with his officials so that we will not have a situation where, on the one hand, funds are made available to preserve our game and, on the other hand, no real effort is made to ensure that the good work which has been started is allowed to continue without this unnecessary slaughter which we occasionally hear of.

(Cavan): I announced a new system of gun licences for visitors as from 1st April next. That should go a long way to remedy the abuse the Deputy has in mind.

I thank the Minister. I should like to ask him again to ensure that the Land Commission speed up the re-allocation of lands which they possess. This is one of the things western Deputies get a great deal of representation about. I know that very often the problem is that one holding is handed over and the Land Commission are holding on because they expect that one or two more holdings in the area will become available and it will then be possible for them to do a better job. Local farmers sometimes find it hard to understand why the Land Commission hold on to lands for such a long period.

Deputy Staunton referred to housing and the fact that when lands are taken over and people are sent to the Midlands or somewhere else their houses are let fall into decay. The Minister should try to ensure that a house which is built by funds from the Land Commission or some other Government Department is not allowed fall into decay. We see many houses throughout the country in a very bad state of repair because they have not been sold or given over to the local authorities to re-allocate to people in need of housing. The Minister should try to get authority from the Government to broaden the scope of his Department so that we will have one concentrated effort with regard to the development of lands.

There are a couple of points I would like to make on this Estimate, which I think are worth making. First of all, like a number of other Deputies, I should like to welcome the recent success of the farm retirement scheme. This scheme was tried out earlier without any notable success. The recent data published by the Department is of considerable interest. It may arise from the current economic circumstances but certainly the number of applicants is a welcome development.

Only a small proportion of the large number of applicants have so far been approved. Some of them, quite justifiably, have not been approved. I hope there is not any unnecessary delay in dealing with these applications because if people are left waiting long enough they can change their minds and their good resolutions may die. The success of this type of scheme depends to a great degree on economic circumstances and perhaps to some degree on encouraging the right kind of farmers to adopt it so that some opportunity is given to young people to engage in farming in the interests of the general welfare of the community and in the social interest.

I was in the country recently and I want to express some concern about reports that arable land is being used for tree planting. The cases mentioned to me refer to land adjacent to forestry plantations. I understand it is the policy of the Department of Lands to confine their programme of planting as far as possible to non-arable land and hillsides. I would not like to mention any particular cases but I would be concerned if there was to be tree planting on arable land. I would regard such a policy as antisocial in our agricultural economic circumstances.

Like other Deputies, I should like to congratulate the Forestry Division on their continued success. It is of considerable importance to the future of our economy that the planting programme, which the Minister has continued from previous administrations, should continue. I urge the owners of non-arable land and hill land to sell to the Department. I know it is quite difficult for the Department officers to continue the planting level unless they have an adequate land bank at their disposal. All public representatives should encourage the transfer of land that is not viable for agricultural purposes to the Department so that they can continue their planting programme.

I suggest to the Minister that a little more publicity might be given to what has happened over the past 12 years in relation to the development of afforestation.

The public are not sufficiently aware of the developments that are taking place and it might be well if the Department were to send out through the media a forecast of the changes that will occur in the next ten, 20 or 30 years, the number of jobs in the developing timber industry and the effect on the balance of payments, because the work the Forestry Division is doing is in the nature of an economic revolution of which very few are aware except, perhaps, people on holidays who notice the amount of planting taking place. It is important that the long-term significance of this be brought to public notice.

Similarly, perhaps more attention should be given in the schools to the Department's work. I know the Department have facilitated production of some booklets in this regard but it is important that youthful imagination should be directed towards the good work being done in the interests of the community.

An aspect of land policy which does not directly relate to the Minister for Lands is this. I have noted in what I might describe as congested districts, particularly in west Kerry, where applications for building development have been granted on agricultural land in areas where there is plenty of non-arable land and a great scarcity of arable land. This is a matter the Minister might discuss with his colleagues in the Departments of Agriculture and Fisheries and Local Government. If there are young farmers in western areas interested in agriculture it is socially very important that the different Departments should clear their minds on this issue.

When an application is made to a county council to build anything from two to ten houses in a rural area it can only be regarded as speculative development and there is probably some difficulty in dealing with it. But I am sure the Minister will appreciate that if he were a small farmer in such an area, with perhaps 20 or 22 acres of land, and if applications for building permission covering three, four or five acres in the same area are being granted by the planning authority, it means that he, as a small farmer, has no prospect of expanding. I have never heard any clear definition of social policy in this regard and I suggest it is a matter that he and his colleagues might consider because, irrespective of the Administration we represent, the ideal of trying to provide land for as many as possible is the best. Our social approach should be clear. Any development in this direction which might come from the Minister would be supported on this side of the House.

Good arable land in areas where such land is scarce should be earmarked for farming and not for speculative development. That does not exclude the right of any small farmer from getting permission to build a home for his son who is engaged in agriculture.

I should like the Minister to clarify policy regarding estates taken over by the Department. Like many other Deputies I was in Cork recently and came across a substantial estate in the north-east Cork area, over 600 acres of arable land, waiting to be used by someone. At least I know good land and it is a great pity to see good land not being used for agricultural purposes. I refer to the Doneraile estate. I hesitate to put the question but I am bound to say that I hope land of this kind is not intended by the Minister to be used for planting purposes. In view of the number of young people who are looking for farms and as this is such good land, the Minister, in the case of estates such as this, should try to accelerate the division and allocation of land.

I compliment the officers and technicians of the Forestry Division on the success of their policy going back over a great number of years. Visitors from abroad have noted the extent of planting, particularly in scenic areas, and it has made quite a big impression. In conclusion I repeat my request to the Minister that, rather than have people like myself talking about the potential value of forestry, the Department should try to get across the picture in terms of the social and economic value of this development in the coming years.

We need to take pride in the things that are being achieved. Anybody who has studied the history of our country and has gone back over the centuries to when our land was denuded of forests realises that the change that is taking place very slowly before our eyes is one of which people should be made aware whether they live in cities or in the country. Young people in schools should be made more aware of the developments that are taking place in that area.

(Cavan)): I should like to thank the Deputies who took part in this debate for their constructive and helpful contributions. It has been a useful debate. Those who took part in it had a knowledge of the subject they were discussing. That is not surprising when one takes into account that land and things pertaining to land are matters in which practically every Deputy is keenly interested. That can be said with greater emphasis in regard to rural Deputies.

Before coming to the debate in general I should like to clear one point. Deputies Brennan and Gallagher seemed to think that the Department of Lands should be completely reorganised. Deputy Brennan suggested that the Department should take charge of various sections of other Departments, that the Department should take over responsibility for many activities now being looked after by other Departments. He appeared to suggest that the Department of Lands at present was not overworked. In introducing this Estimate last year I emphasised that in my opinion never was there more necessity for the Department of Lands and the Land Commission than at present. We are in a transitional period from one type of farming to another, from one form of land structure to another. It is highly desirable to have a vigilant Land Commission operated under the Department of Lands to ensure that the best possible land structure is obtained and that we will have in years to come as many farmers as reasonably possible settled on land and securing a decent family livelihood from the land. I believe that in the absence of the Land Commission and the Department of Lands there is every danger there would be a free-for-all approach towards the acquisition of land and towards the farm structure in general.

I could not agree that, in the short-term at any rate, it would be feasible or desirable to implement some of the suggestions of Deputy Brennan. For example, he suggested that the Department of Lands should take over responsibility for promoting industry in the west of Ireland. There are at present two Departments charged with that duty—the Department of Industry and Commerce and Roinn na Gaeltachta. In his short time in office my colleague, the Minister for the Gaeltacht, has left his mark in the west of Ireland, particularly in the Gaeltacht areas, in providing industry there. If the Department of Lands were to dabble in this field it would be simply duplicating work.

Deputy Brennan spoke about accommodation roads. The Department of Local Government, through the local authorities, are very well equipped to do this work, have the necessary machinery available through county engineers, assistant engineers and the road making department of each county council. Therefore, I do not think that is a good point. He seemed to go on to suggest that in some way or another the Department of Lands should be responsible for the Electricity Supply Board in rural Ireland. The ESB are under the Department of Transport and Power and on the whole in the last 50 years they have done a good job. If they were to be split up, with some parts handed over to the Minister for Lands, it would be fragmenting responsibility.

In so far as the environment is concerned, Deputy Brennan would appear to have a point: that the Department of Lands should play a part in improving the environment, in making rural Ireland a better place to live, but this Department already discharge that function by cooperating in the closest possible way with the Department of Local Government, the Department having overall control for the environment at the moment. A moment's thought will show that the Department of Local Government are the Department which should have responsibility for preventing damage to the environment through effluent from factories, through the discharge of smoke into the atmosphere and should be responsible for having proper planning and development in general. The Department of Lands co-operate very fully with the Department of Local Government in that work and, as the House is aware, the Planning Bill provides for the appointment of a board who would keep themselves informed of the activities and policies of a number of Departments, including Lands.

Deputy Brennan would hand over drainage to the Department of Lands. Arterial drainage has been the responsibility of the Department of Finance under a Parliamentary Secretary who is also in charge of the Board of Works. Local drainage is the responsibility of the Department of Local Government and to some extent of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries which are responsible for the Land Project. Therefore to remove drainage from those Departments would not be a good thing.

In laying down policy for acquisition and division of land, in preventing the acquisition of land by speculators, the Department of Lands as at present constituted are doing good work. That does not mean the Department will continue indefinitely without change. As Deputies know, there have been changes. Once, the Department of Lands looked after fisheries. Some people might think that was a good combination. There have been all sorts of suggestions in this respect which are matters for further debate.

As might well have been anticipated, quite a lot of the debate was devoted to the farm retirement scheme and I want to thank Deputies for the reception they have given to it, and the encouragement. Before dealing with the scheme in general I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that most Deputies when talking of the scheme said it would be hard to sell. They seemed to think there is an inherent love in the Irishman's heart for the land on which he was born, and a desire to cling on to it. When I hear that approach to the scheme I find it necessary to spell out what it is all about and to whom it is directed.

The scheme is not beamed at people who are comfortably and happily engaged in agriculture. There is no desire to get these people off the land. Neither is the scheme directed to people who have immediate heirs or successors who would follow them as workers of the land. It would be wrong to operate a policy directed towards getting off the land people who are profitably and happily engaged in farming and I for one would not be a party to any such policy, coming from an agricultural background as I do, from a farm that has been in the family for a couple of hundred years.

This is a scheme to enable farmers who are not getting a decent living from farming—who are perhaps bad farmers, who are not enjoying good health—to retire from farming. It does not mean they would retire from work, but from farming. As I have said many times, they will be retiring to financial security with dignity. I do not believe such farmers would have any difficulty in availing of the scheme.

The experience we have had since the scheme came into operation on 1st May last shows the type of farmers who are interested in the scheme. For instance, Deputy O'Connor from Kerry adopted the line I have been speaking about and in reply to him I was able to point out that since the scheme came into operation there have been 52 applicants from Kerry. There has been a generally satisfactory response to the scheme so far. Deputies, and I am glad to feel people throughout the country, realise that it is a good scheme. In the words of Deputy Cunningham, who led for the Opposition: "It is a good scheme, a very good scheme", from the point of view of the amount of the pension, the duration of the pension and the fact that there are pension and premium, whereas the EEC directive requires only a retirement pension and does not require a sustained premium if we pay a pension.

As I said, I think the debate here will do a good deal to further publicise the scheme and get it brought to the attention of the people in general. While the scheme was given a very generous welcome and reception here a few Deputies introduced what I regard as harmful red herrings. I was, for example, asked whether farmers who avail of the scheme will qualify for non-contributory old age pensions. My answer is that that will be a matter for the Department of Social Welfare. A farmer who sells his farm for £20,000 would not, as things stand at the moment, qualify for a non-contributory old age pension. If he is married he will, however, qualify for a pension of £600 a year under this scheme. That is a big improvement on the position that existed before the scheme was brought in. If a farmer wanted to retire pre-scheme, and he sold his farm for £20,000 and invested the money in some worthwhile investment, that was an end of it; he got no pension. As things stand at the moment, he certainly would not qualify for an old age pension but he will have a pension under this scheme and he can take his chance with the non-contributory old age pension.

As things are going, and as the means test is being generously relaxed in practically every budget, it is quite likely—I give no assurance on it— that farmers who retire under the scheme may also qualify for some non-contributory pension. The same argument applies to those who might think they are qualified for unemployment assistance of one kind or another. Bear in mind the fact that the man who retires at 55 can expect to have a few years' work left in him and he can earn whatever he likes as far as the Department of Lands are concerned and still enjoy his pension under the scheme. These are the things we should be emphasising in relation to the scheme rather than trying to search around for mischievous little points that could well do harm. I am not really complaining about the Opposition's approach to the scheme, because they were generous, but I still maintain it is harmful to emphasise little mischievous points such as I have mentioned. The merits far outweigh any disadvantages there might be from the point of view of qualifying for other benefits.

The suggestion was made—I think by Deputy Cunningham—that it would be desirable for a farmer to have all options available before coming to a decision as to whether or not he would come in under the scheme. Perhaps Deputy Cunningham was thinking about other EEC schemes, such as the handicapped area scheme and the regional fund. I agree that the ideal situation would be to have all options available before the farmer makes up his mind. Before very long I think all the options will be available because the handicapped area scheme for hill farmers, and so on, is at an advanced stage and will be finalised before very long. The House will have learned recently that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is fighting as hard as he possibly can, and against some very considerable odds, to ensure that the regional fund is set up and brought into operation at the earliest possible moment. It just so happens that the retirement scheme was got through before these other schemes but, as I say, it will not be very long until they are all in operation.

Deputy Esmonde feels very strongly about people who have been letting land for a few years being excluded from the benefit of the retirement scheme. He believes that farmers who have been letting land for one, two, three or four years should be entitled to come in under the scheme. Under the directive a person had to be actively engaged in farming in order to qualify and being actively engaged in farming was defined as spending at least 50 per cent of one's time in agriculture and deriving at least 50 per cent of one's income from agriculture in the five years immediately preceding the application. Now there may be something in what Deputy Esmonde says and there will be a review of the common agricultural policy in the not too distant future. This review will give member states an opportunity of putting forward suggestions for changes and the point made by Deputy Esmonde will be borne in mind.

Some Deputy—it may have been Deputy Leonard—appealed for a flexible application of the scheme. Indeed many Deputies hoped that the scheme would not be rigidly enforced and that every technicality would not be availed of to exclude people from the scheme. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the scheme will be operated on the basis of seeing how many people can be brought into it and how many applicants can be accommodated within it rather than on the basis of seeing how many people can be excluded from it. I trust that will put minds at ease, the minds of those who fear that it is a scheme in name only and that it will be operated on a technical, narrow-minded basis. That is not the idea. That is not how it will work. We will operate it on the basis of seeing how many people we can bring into it, rather than on the basis of seeing how many people we can exclude from it.

Where the farmer holds on to the old dwelling, does he get clear possession of the dwelling and may he pass it on to his next of kin? That has not been defined or explained.

(Cavan): That is a matter for arrangement between the retiring farmer and the Land Commission or the continuing farmer. He can exclude the dwelling house and two acres of land permanently and absolutely and deal with them anyway he likes later on. It might very well be that the farmer who was purchasing direct from the retiring farmer might say: “I would rather do this on the basis that you would have the house and the bit of land for your life only and that they would come to me afterwards.” That is a matter for agreement between the two of them. There is nothing in the world to prevent the retiring farmer from retaining the fee simple interest in the land and the house.

I noticed a short time ago that there was what I might call criticism of the retirement scheme from an unexpected quarter. Dr. Ivor Browne was reported in The Irish Times as saying that, in his opinion, the scheme could add to rural geriatric problems and bring on premature senility. In view of that, I should like to spell out a few things about the scheme. While I have the greatest respect for Dr. Ivor Browne, I feel he did not fully understand the particulars of the scheme when he spoke.

First of all, it is a voluntary scheme with no element of compulsion in it, based on people who are not happy in agriculture, and who are pursuing agriculture as a livelihood only because they have no other way of keeping body and soul together, and some of whom are probably not making a very good job of it. Secondly, it gives people an opportunity of retiring from farming, but not necessarily retiring from work. When a man retires under the scheme if he is able to work, there is nothing good, bad or indifferent to prevent him from working as a principal in any other occupation for which he is suited.

When bringing in this scheme I saw to it that there was nothing to prevent him from working as a paid hand for a farmer on a farm if he wanted to do so. The directive lays down that he should get out of agricultural work altogether. I thought that unreasonable from the point of view of the retiring farmer and the continuing farmer, and I got permission from Brussels to provide that the farmer who retires under the scheme can work part-time, or full-time, or do seasonal work for a farmer for remuneration and reward.

He is also entitled to work in a town if he wants to, or to work on the roads if he can get work on the roads, or do anything else he wants to. The only thing he is precluded from doing is continuing in agriculture as a principal. Deputy Gallagher has just drawn to the attention of the House that the scheme also provides that a retiring farmer may retain for himself the house and two acres of land. If he is in the older age group, he will probably find enough to do on the two acres of land to keep himself occupied.

Since I made my opening speech introducing this Estimate, three cases have been absolutely finalised, that is to say, the annuities have been set up and they are in payment or about to be paid. One of those cases comes from Kerry, one from Laois, and one from Mayo. In each of those cases the retiring farmer decided to hold on to the house and two acres of land, probably as an occupation or as a hobby. Those three cases involved sales direct to the Land Commission, and two annuities of £600 and one of £400 have been arranged. As I said, the farms are situated in Kerry, Laois and Mayo. The total acreage involved is 116, the combined purchase moneys amounted to £32,500 and the premiums amounted to £3,150. As I said, the three farmers decided to hold on to their houses and two acres of land and they continue to reside where they lived all their lives close to their friends.

I fail to see how it can be said that a farmer who is not happy in agriculture, probably making a bad job of it, worried to death, perhaps, as to how he will keep himself for the rest of his life and who decides to avail of this scheme and keep his house and two acres of land, or take up employment in a town, or on the roads, or with a neighbouring farmer, will become prematurely senile or have geriatric problems. On the contrary. An elderly pair living together, worried about where their next meal is to come from, worried how they will spend the rest of their lives, are much more likely to develop mental problems than a man who avails of one or other of the options in the scheme. When the scheme is fully understood and fully appreciated, I am sure it will be conceded that that criticism was not warranted.

I have told the House that three cases have been absolutely finalised since I introduced the Estimate. Another 30 cases have been successfully concluded in that the price has been agreed on. I agree with Deputies who said it would be a calamity if there were to be any delay in processing applications. That would damage the prospect of the success of the scheme. I can assure the House that there will be no such delays. It was understandable that in the first couple of months there were inquiries that would have to be made and cases would not begin to flow but I am satisfied that from now on there will be a steady stream of new cases.

Deputy Callanan queried the age of the applicants. I want to put it on record that of the 1,000 applicants received, 14 per cent were under 55 years, 61 per cent were aged between 55 and 65, and 25 per cent were over 65. That shows that there is a fair smattering across the board from the people intended to be covered by the scheme. Deputy Callanan seemed to think that the scheme would be very costly if only elderly people availed of it. He correctly pointed out that the EEC do not subvent the scheme after the age of 65. Of course, at 65 years and over people would have fewer years left to draw the pension than if they came in at a younger age. That covers everything I want to say about the scheme. I am pleased at the reception it got in the House, from the national Press and from farming organisations throughout the country. I believe it will serve the purpose for which it was introduced and for which it was intended, that is, to enable those who are not happily and profitably engaged in farming to retire in dignity and financial security on the one hand and to provide land for developing or continuing farmers to enable them to make a decent and worthwhile living in agriculture on the other.

The next item which came in for considerable attention was the old chestnut of land bonds. Land bonds were used in the purchase of land since before the foundation of the State. I would like to give a brief history of land bonds over the the past 50 years. In 1923 there were still about 114,000 farmers paying rent to landlords for over 3 million acres of land. Land bonds to the extent of £21 million enabled these farmers to become fee simple owners of their own lands. That was under the 1923 Land Act. An additional area of about 1,300,000 acres has been acquired by the Land Commission for distribution at a price of nearly £30 million in land bonds. Whatever we may think about these land bonds, they played a big part in making tenants fee simple owners of their lands. It is, of course, true to say that in those days they held their value and the rate of interest paid was considered very good. Holders of land bonds used insure against them being redeemed because they would suffer a loss if they were redeemed and were standing at over par on the stock exchange.

I do not seek to defend land bonds as a system for paying for land. I believe we should reach the stage where a person whose land is being taken from him compulsorily should have the option of being paid in cash. That is the ideal situation. Without becoming controversial, I regret very much that some of the people who are today so loudly condemning land bonds did not take steps to have them abolished and cash substituted a few years ago when there was less pressure on the Exchequer than there is today. At present, it is difficult to introduce innovations which could cost the Exchequer substantial sums of money.

On the night I was given the opportunity of taking charge of this Ministry, I said that my idea was to get rid of land bonds. In the short term since I have been in charge of this Department we have made considerable progress. In 1972-73, £200,000 was provided for the cash purchase of lands. In the first budget which this Government introduced in 1973-74, that sum was increased to £1 million. In the nine months' budget introduced this year, a sum of £2,225,000 was provided for the cash purchase of land, the equivalent of £3 million for a full year. That sum of £3 million is approximately 15 times the amount being provided when we took office. I am still not satisfied and it is my ambition to get rid of land bonds entirely.

Some people—perhaps people who are dealing in larger sums of money and accustomed to speaking in terms of high finance—were and still are prepared to deal in land bonds on a voluntary basis. In the five years 1965-70, 250 owners voluntarily sold over 17,000 acres of land to the Land Commission for £1,500,000 in land bonds. At present, there are 131 cases involving 6,000 acres being processed with a view to agreement on a voluntary basis in regard to land bonds. The present rate is 12½ per cent.

I want to repeat that my hope and ambition are that I will be able to substitute cash for land bonds when the economic situation so warrants. I gathered from the speeches of Deputies Callanan and Carter that they saw no hope, at any time, of substituting cash for land bonds. I do not share that view. I am more optimistic. I hope we will reach the stage where we will be able to do that. There is one point with which I want to deal immediately. If the happy day arrives when a person who is having his land taken compulsorily gets an option of taking cash, there can be no question of retrospection. I gathered from some of the speeches made that there was a suggestion that those who received land bonds in the past should be compensated now in some way or another. That would not be feasible because, if we were to do that, there would be endless millions involved and it would go back 50 years. One would be dealing with people who hold land bonds, not as original vendors to the Land Commission, but as people who bought them on the stock exchange as speculation of one kind or another. Therefore it is not helpful to hold out any hope that if land bonds are abolished they will be abolished retrospectively or that people will be compensated in some way or another. That would mean going back to the 1923 Act. It would involve dealing with people who had not sold land to the Land Commission at all but who had bought bonds. As long as bonds are used, it would be my ambition to try and get as equitable a bond as is possible.

Deputies Hogan O'Higgins, Gilhawley, Staunton and Gallagher, in that order, raised the question of the delay in selling houses. I thoroughly agree that houses which come into the hands of the Land Commission should not be left uninhabited and that they should be disposed of as quickly as possible. This was drawn to my attention last year and arrangements were made to introduce new procedures in relation to these houses under which a decision would be taken, with the minimum of delay, after the house came into the possession of the Land Commission as to whether it was required for allocation with the land or whether it could be sold independently of it. The Land Commission did take steps to sell off these houses in cases where they would not be required for allocation with the land. Unfortunately, there was some delay after the introduction of the new Auctioneers Bill, in which there was a decision to be made in regard to payment of commission and there was a court case arising out of conditions of sale which were being used by the Land Commission. Both those things did cause some delay. I can tell the House that I agree and accept that it is unsound policy to have houses on hands for one moment longer than necessary because they deteriorate and they are wanted by people for occupation.

One Deputy suggested that there should be close liaison between the local authorities, who are the housing authorities, and the Land Commission in regard to those houses. Many of them would be quite suitable for immediate occupation by people in search of houses. Others could be made habitable and comfortable with a reasonable amount of expense. I will see to it that there is liaison and co-operation between the two Departments, at least in so far as the Land Commission are concerned. If we are going to dispose of houses, the local authorities will be made aware of the fact and they will be placed on the market as quickly as possible.

The question of bogs was raised by Deputies Cunningham, Geoghegan and Taylor. When the fuel shortage occurred last year the Land Commission carried out a comprehensive review of the position and they have had extensive consultations with other bodies involved in the turf business, notably Bord na Móna and An Foras Talúntais. There is no doubt that the old, conventional type of turbary scheme of plots—one chain wide and ten chains long—is now obsolete, especially in the case of basin or mid-land-type bogs. Except in parts of Mayo, Connemara and Clare, most people are in favour of turf cutting by machines. This means that one acre plots must be wider and shorter so that machines can get to work to best advantage. Of course machines are expensive. The best prospect for their utilisation seems to be the organisation of local, co-operative groups who would hire machines either from the turf company or private contractors. I want to inform the House that this Department are prepared to respond to any local demand with technical and financial assistance in efforts to increase turf supply. On this topic I should like to point out that, strange as it may seem, there has not been any worthwhile demand made on the Land Commission in relation to turf banks or plots since the fuel crisis. As I have said, we have undertaken a survey of the position and, if there should be such a demand, we are quite prepared to co-operate to the fullest possible extent in the making available of bog plots to those who need them.

In regard to roads, I must say that their provision, and certainly their maintenance, is not a matter for the Department of Lands but rather for the Department of Local Government through the county councils. Many of the Deputies who made this point, demanding that the Land Commission and the Department of Lands should provide those roads, are themselves members of local authorities. I do not say this in any carping attitude. But it is through the local authorities, of which they are members, that they should direct their requests for improvement of those bog roads and, if necessary, on to the Department of Local Government. The duty of the Land Commission in regard to roads ends when they allot bog plots, or bog plots in conjunction with land. As I understand it, their duty ends there and the maintenance of the roads thereafter is a matter either for the people who have been alloted the land or for the county councils and the Department of Local Government.

Commonages were brought up again this year. I am very grateful to the Deputies from Mayo for their appreciation of the work done by the Land Commission in the division of commonages there. It is a delicate situation, one that needs the full cooperation of the local people concerned. In relation to commonages, there is a major public relations job to be carried out by the local advisory services, the farming organisations and others interested in the division of commonages.

I would remind the Minister before he adjourns the debate that he has 30 minutes left of the time allotted to him.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn