asked the Minister for Agriculture why there has been no increase in the grant-in-aid for capital purposes to An Foras Talúntais.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - An Foras Talúntais.
26.
The total provision of £6,950,000 for An Foras Talúntais in 1978 for both capital and non-capital purposes shows an increase of 8 per cent as compared with 1977. This compares favourably with an increase of 7 per cent for the Department of Agriculture as a whole, if the provision for consumer subsidies is excluded.
Is it not the case that there is a separate subhead in the Department for this purpose and that the capital fund has not been increased at all?
The capital fund has stood at £50,000 since 1975 and no increase was made in that by the previous Administration either.
Yes. Is the Minister aware that the money for capital purposes allocated to the Agricultural Institute for this year has already been spent and that there is no money left in the Institute's capital fund for works which are ongoing at the moment?
I am not so aware.
Would the Minister investigate the matter?
I certainly will, yes.
27.
asked the Minister for Agriculture when he proposes to enable An Foras Talúntais to increase its staff sufficiently to secure the necessary information for an equitable land valuation.
Land valuation is used for a variety of purposes including local rating, farmer taxation, social services and educational grants, and the methods used to determine the valuations do not come within my direct area of responsibility as Minister for Agriculture. I should say, however, that the basis to be used for determining equitable land valuation for a variety of purposes would raise very broad issues which would require extensive study before a decision in principle could be taken on the question of undertaking a national revaluation of agricultural land, and such basis might not necessarily fall within functions appropriate to An Foras Talúntais.
Is it not a fact that An Foras Talúntais are saying that they can make a proper valuation of land throughout the country if they could get a staff of 80 for five years. Surely that is part of the function of the Minister for Agriculture and surely it is an extremely important thing to establish a proper and up-to-date valuation of land. Would the Minister not agree that now that the Government are looking for outlets for employment this would be a first-class and very valuable outlet?
I agree with many of the points made by Deputy Clinton. The cost of a survey of that kind would be in the region of £10.46 million in a period of 13 years. From a preliminary study of the proposals it has been established that no attempt has been made to quantify the benefits to be expected from such a survey, but a case could be made for it on the basis of equity.
Can the Minister tell us what is the source of this assessment of 13 years? It was estimated it would take 11 years, then it was thought it would take 12 years, and now it has gone to 13 years, with all the new aids we have to help us with land revaluation. Can the Minister tell the House how 13 years has been arrived at?
This would come within the functions of the Valuation Office, the Ordnance Survey and the Department of Finance rather than the Department of Agriculture.
I do not think any of those organisations know the first thing about land.
The Minister said it could be argued there is a need for this on the basis of equity. Does he consider that the present system is just or unjust—what is his personal opinion and that of the Department?
My opinion may not matter a great deal. I appreciate that there are anomalies in the present rating system of land particularly because of the introduction of farm taxation——
And the removal of rates reliefs.
All these things. It is a big job which could not be gone into easily.
Has the Minister any opinion on it?
He does not wish to put it on record.