If we discuss precisely what is in this Bill we will have a rather limited and technical debate. Most of us will take the liberty to discuss problems generally and what might have been included in a Bill like this. The Minister did the right thing in confining himself to what was absolutely necessary before there is any possibility of getting a land leasing system off the ground. At this stage he has confined himself to eliminating the major difficulties that have arisen for people who are contemplating entering this kind of arrangement. It is not possible to start a system of land leasing without introducing legislation such as this but that does not mean this is all that is necessary in order to change the system by which land is transferred and worked.
Even if we go further at the moment, at least we will see if people proceed to avail of the improved conditions and we may find it necessary to introduce other measures, incentives or subsidies. It has been made easier for them to avail of land leasing arrangements. It is said continually that subsidies or incentives are needed to encourage people to take certain steps but of course we could approach the question from another angle. We could make it more difficult for people to hold on to natural resources that are so important for the development of our economy. We could make much more difficult the climate in which people would retain land that is under-utilised. Perhaps that would be another way of creating an incentive. But most people who have contributed to this debate have talked of subsidies and incentives. That is a safe line to take especially when one is in Opposition.
The whole matter of agriculture in Ireland is considered in an outdated way. Agriculture is not considered as a business. The majority of people involved in agriculture see it more as a way of life than as a business. They are proud of the tradition which has been handed down to them through generations; the standard of living is only secondary. It became popular for politicians to go along with that attitude, to say to people that they will be helped to remain on the farms they have inherited, that they will be helped to do so, but that is to forget that we have developed an economic situation which has resulted in one-third of our people being congregated in this city. That is the direct opposite of what we were proposing. Not only did we fail to keep the people on the land, while expressing these pious platitudes, but we failed to keep them in the villages. We allowed them to congregate in one coastal area so that there are now too many in that area for the services that are available. That is the difference between expressing our wishes as to what we should like to see happening and doing something about it.
Farming is about the business of producing food. It should be regarded in the same way as is any other business. We should endeavour to move away as much as possible from the emotive terms of landlordism and so on, from talking of what happened a couple of hundred years ago. While it is good to know our history in that respect, it is not good to continue to carry the inhibitions and the insecurities which were probably reasonable 150 or 200 years ago but which are only a disadvantage today. People do not starve any more in these parts of the world if they do not own 20 or 30 acres of land. There is no possibility that by developing a new land leasing system we will create a situation in which a landlord will have absolute power over those people who lease land from him. We are in a new situation. It is obvious to anyone that, using science, technology and education, the potential of the land of Europe is almost limitless. We do not need more land in order to produce sufficient food. There is a surplus of beef in Europe and for the first time ever there is a surplus of coarse grains this year. There is also surplus production of sugar beet. These are the foods that Irish farmers produce. We can sell foodstuffs to countries outside the EC but not at the prices we want. On the world market we would not get enough to cover the cost of producing these foods. Therefore, we must be content to think in the European context though the American situation may be relevant. The matter of putting food on the market is not a big problem any more. The emphasis in the future must be on the processing side now that we have the opportunity to add value and so on.
Any measure introduced here should be designed to make our agricultural industry more efficient. There is still the hankering after the family farm though I am not sure any more what that means. We tend to think that the ideal situation is to have the maximum number of farms that is consistent with a decent standard of living but we think in terms of one labour unit. Today young farmers often wish to marry at 20 or 22 years of age. This can mean that in 20 years time, though only 40, he may have an heir who is 20 years old, who is trained and ready to work the farm. If we think of the age of the re-elected President of the US, we can visualise there being four generations in terms of inheritance of land. In that sense we would be talking about a farm for four labour units. In the modern world also there is the factor that the spouse of a farmer will be demanding a right to work on the farm. At a minimum we are talking about farms that employ two labour units. Transition is usually from father to son by way of partnership. Difficulties may arise in any partnership but a father and son partnership is natural.
In any event, we must think in terms of a family farm that will provide work and an income for two or possibly three labour units. In the past the position has been usually two labour units but only one income. Whatever we may say about the unemployment situation I do not think that future generations will have the same sentiment as those who have gone before them in relation to staying on the land. I do not think they will remain on the land if they cannot have the same standard of living as would be available to them in other walks of life. Therefore, we must apply ourselves seriously to the question of viable agricultural units.
I am not among those who object to land being bought by people who are not farmers. There are some who may refer to such people as speculators but my attitude is that they should have the right to buy land if they so wish. Devices could be applied to encourage people to make proper use of land and if they failed in that respect we could take steps such as those I outlined earlier. I do not consider that agriculture should be the preserve of those who have been living on the land. In recent years particularly there has been speculation in land. Farmers were as guilty as everybody else as regards pushing up the price of land but recently, however, land has found its market value. In the past prices paid for land and for leases bore little relationship to the return that could be got from it. This is the crux of the matter: farmers want a return from the land. The person leasing the land wants to get a return from that and the lessee also wants to get a return for any investment he makes in the land by way of machinery, stock and so on. He also wants to get a return for his labour. Agricultural land does not yield that kind of return for one person never mind two people, given the level of productivity, interest rates and so on.
If we subsidise this from whom will we take the money? It will be from other taxpayers. In doing so we will reduce the number of jobs that could be created elsewhere. At the end of the day we might only succeed in pushing up the price of the lease still further. No matter how it is approached, if it is decided to give a direct subsidy to a farmer who is purchasing a lease, the chances are that in a competitive situation he will pay more for the lease. The price of the lease could also be pushed up if the guaranteed price for an agricultural product was increased. The beneficiary in the end will be the person who is retiring and handing over the land and not the person who will farm the land. The Minister must look at this very carefully.
Many people say that the first thing to do is subsidise it and who cares who pays for it. Others say to let the EC subsidise it. Last year we received net benefits to the tune of £640 million and considering the budgetary position it is only wishful thinking to imagine that we will get significant assistance for new policies. We can re-organise whatever way we want to and have improved structures at the expense of guarantees but we will not have an extended budget. What more can we do other than what the Minister did? We must look at the funds that are available to us and at what can be raised through taxation, put them together and ask how best we can use this money to promote the development of land and create the maximum number of jobs.
There has been a lot of talk and sentiment expressed about tailoring the size of a unit to meet the needs of a family. We have ended up with one third of our people being accommodated on the east coast and this shows that all the talk from the different political parties was just a pious aspiration. There was no real action.
In Germany they have paid the price for retaining small inefficient farms. They have given such farmers part time jobs. They have been subsidised in efficient commercial and industrial activities. They have a beautiful countryside and have maintained life in the rural areas. Even in the mountain areas they have spare time farmers. Most of these have full time jobs. They farm in the evenings, on Sundays, during holidays and so on.
Jobs are scarce and we need more of them. It is a politically sore point but we must bear in mind that it costs between £20,000 and £40,000 to create an industrial job. Is it reasonable to spend such money on the creation of an industrial job, to give a person social security and so on and then proceed to subsidise him on a farm as well? There are 60,000 farmers who earn £5,000 or £6,000 a year. We need to study this matter more. Just because it is popular does not mean it is right. Can we afford to subsidise two jobs for anyone, one on the land and one in a factory? Is agriculture any more entitled to be subsidised than manufacturing industry?
We regard the percentage of people who are on the land as very good. We have 20 per cent of people on the land and they produce 13 per cent of GNP. What is exported in terms of food is beside the point. What they produce is less than their share of GNP. I do not say that is their fault. It is the fault of the system within which they work and of international markets.
In an economic plan published by the Opposition some years ago they forcast that 3,000 people per year would leave the land. Time has borne out their predictions. The rate is slowing down now basically because work has become scarce elsewhere. The old argument was that if we did not provide people with a living on the land they would go to the cities but why go to the cities now when there is no employment there? If we are to have work sharing on the land, why not have it in industry as well?
We should cut out a lot of the sentiment and take a hard look at the whole matter. We must be realistic and assess how much money we need to invest and whether we would get a return for it. In Europe the countries with the highest proportion of people working on the land are Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy, and our country is next. Generally speaking the higher the percentage of people on the land the lower the standard of living. In America, GDP is three times greater than ours but they have only 2½ per cent of the population on the land. They produce enough to feed themselves and many other people in the world. Our objective must be to ensure that the land is utilised in the best possible way.
When we speak about structuring we must bear in mind the points made by the previous speaker about the different uses of land. The main crops which we produce are now surplus to our needs. We depend on prices in the EC because it would be very difficult to sell our products in the world market. As we have to sell on the European market we may have quotas for an indefinite time in beef and cereals although I would prefer to get back to a sensible policy which would encourage competition.
The Minister must ask whether it is necessary to provide new incentives and encouragement in the form of subsidisation. A farm retirement scheme was introduced a few years ago to encourage people to leave the land but there were many other schemes which had the direct opposite effect. They encouraged people to hold on to their land for dear life. We must look at the sum of £250 million per annum which is provided for agriculture and see whether it can be increased. Perhaps we are not making the best use of it.
Other speakers have referred to the abolition of the Land Commission. When Mr. Gibbons was Minister for Agriculture he told the Land Commission not to buy any more land and to get rid of their existing land. None of the Ministers since then changed that order. I wonder if the Land Commission will ever have all the land divided. Somebody said today that they still have 40,000 acres under their control and I am sure they are as anxious to hang on to that as any old farmer is to hold on to land. For some reason they are dragging their feet in this regard.
During the past year and a half all the land in the west could have been divided by the officers there if they worked hard for a month. Furthermore, there was no sense in the way some of the land was divided. I know they are conscientious people who are trained to a particular job but they were only as good as the system within which they worked. There were social and economic considerations which they had to take into account and they never knew where they stood. The result was that it was given to people who did not even stock the land they had. I questioned this policy and the Minister told me he could not do anything about it. I also questioned officers of the Land Commission and they said that it was only a temporary situation and that the land would be stocked after a while. Why do intelligent, trained officers give land to people who have no intention of working it? They do not have the capability, finance, knowledge or the will to work it. It is given to them for social reasons and in the hope that even if a farmer is not capable of working it that his sons will do better in 20 years time. Land should only be given to people who are ready to work it as soon as they get it and, if that does not happen, it should be repossessed by the Land Commission and given to somebody who would work it. If there was no one available in the area, the land could be used for afforestation or amenity parks.
Unless we become much more efficient with regard to the production of food we will have to think seriously about alternative uses for our land. We should think seriously about the areas of energy and afforestation. I read recently that trees are being developed which will improve the performance of forest crops by about 25 per cent or 30 per cent. We need long term planning to decide how much of our land we should use for amenity purpose and how much should be preserved in its natural state. The whole question of land is not as simple as it is made out to be. It is still an emotive matter in rural areas but it is our duty, as politicians, to introduce a note of realism and to tell farmers that they are another industry which produces goods and that they must do so at competitive prices. If the cost is too dear it reduces the standard of living of the people who buy their produce. It is not just a matter of devising a plausible policy which will attract votes.
In the late seventies when conditions were right and prices attractive, our agriculture expanded more rapidly than anywhere else in the EC, even Holland and Denmark. However, things have changed since then and today if you gave land to a young farmer and told him he could have it for nothing if he equipped it and bought livestock in order to get a return on his capital, he would not be able to do so. People took risks in the seventies but not many farmers take risks today. Fortunately, the price of land has dropped and the Minister and the Government must be very careful not to do anything which will encourage people to pay more for it because in Ireland, for all the emotive reasons which were mentioned, we tend to remember the price of land but not the value.
Recently many young people have come to me asking if they could get a loan to buy land. I have to tell them that even at the reduced price of land they must be prepared to work the land for the first seven or eight years or subsidise it from existing holdings. You wonder how the sentimentality can survive that causes people to want to buy land. It is up to the Minister to give leadership and one good example is his campaign to bring groups of farmers together and offering the facility of the advice of his Department. This is an example of what can be done without pushing up costs and without involving any more taxation. It could have an immense effect.
We had this sort of leadership a few years ago when Mr. Clinton was Minister for Agriculture. He succeeded in encouraging farmers just by advising them to grow more cereal crops. Apart from subsidisation and incentives we must encourage people. We need training and education so that our farmers will be as efficient as they are any place else. People ask what does the future hold for meat, beef and cereals. The answer is to use the science and technology, education and training which are available in this State. If we can achieve that, we will survive. If not, we will not survive.
The European lesson has taught us to use the free markets. Ireland would probably have done better with a more severe pricing system for milk. The less interference by Government and State agencies the better. We must ensure that our young people are well trained and well educated. We need to create an economic environment in which they can get a return from their investment and their hard work. Otherwise only the fittest will survive. That does not mean we will let the weak starve. We must encourage people with initiative and enterprise. At present that is not possible for one reason or another. You cannot invest money in agriculture and get a return. There is no return for hard work and investment in agriculture at present for a number of reasons. One is that we have not got the skills. Some of our farmers are the best in the world but quite a number are not.
I should like the Minister to take into consideration what I have said. I want to congratulate him on the efforts he has made over the past few years. He is expected to provide millions to finance every whim. That will not work. Within the limits of his budget he has used the resources which are available to him more than anyone else who has had his job.