asked the Minister for Lands if there has been any change in the policy of the Land Commission regarding the acquisition of small holdings that are offered for sale; and, if not, if he will indicate the policy of the Land Commission regarding the purchase of land.

The matter of the future policy of the Land Commission is under consideration at present. Meanwhile there has been no change in the existing policy in regard to the acquisition of land which, in general, is to proceed for the acquisition or purchase of any lands deemed to be suitable and required for the purposes of the Land Commission.

Is the Minister aware that there is a need for a direct policy on the part of the Land Commission regarding the acquisition and purchase of land? There are too many deals being mixed up in respect of land because the Land Commission do not know where they stand.

We cannot have a debate at Question Time.

Can the Minister say when he intends carrying out his intention to stop this messing around with bits and pieces of land all over the west of Ireland? He expressed this intention in reply to me on the debate on the Estimate for his Department at the end of 1969.

(Cavan): Is the Minister aware that the greatest obstacle in the way of the Land Commission acquiring land is payment in land bonds?

Hear, hear.

(Cavan): Is the Minister aware that nobody wants land bonds and that it is impossible to explain to people that bonds might be worth par because people are convinced that the bonds are useless? Would the Minister take steps to ensure that land is paid for in cash? If he does so there will not be half the difficulties or objections that are being experienced now.

I thank Deputy Fitzpatrick. I agree with him on that. I think the most hopeful sign was the declaration at the Summit of the nine Prime Ministers that they will have a vigorous regional policy which they will put into operation. Let us hope that the fooling around with parcels of five or six acres of land of which Deputy O'Donovan spoke will become irrelevant rapidly.

28.

asked the Minister for Lands if he is aware that six months may elapse from the date on which local Land Commission offices report on a particular farm until a decision on the farm is given by the Land Commission head offices in Dublin; and if such decisions will be expedited.

It is the policy of the Land Commission to have inspections carried out and decisions conveyed to interested parties as quickly as possible.

As regard compulsory proceedings, I may add that where the Land Commission serve an inspection notice it is statutorily provided that the lands which are the subject of the notice shall not be sold, transferred, let, sublet or subdivided without the consent in writing of the Land Commission for a period of three months, and this period may be extended by another three months. In practice, however, in the vast majority of cases the inspections are carried out and a decision made within the first three months and it is only rarely found necessary to extend the period.

Since tabling this question I have been informed that some cases going from local offices throughout the country can be with the Land Commission in Dublin for as long as 12 months. How can a Deputy be expected to keep in touch with the problems of his constituents when documents of this nature are not dealt with for such a length of time? Can the Minister give any assurance to the House that these matters will be speeded up?

I do not understand this because——

Can you imagine——

The Deputy may not imagine anything. He must allow the Minister to reply.

Can the Minister imagine the position he would be in as a public representative if representations made by him to the Land Commission on behalf of constituents were not dealt with for 12 months by which time the matters would have been forgotten?

Could the Minister do anything to expedite the acquisition and, subsequently, the sub-division of holdings acquired by the Land Commission? There is too much delay involved and it is this delay that is responsible for the questions tabled here today. I do not know how anybody can justify the delay of six years by the Land Commission in sub-dividing a holding.

That is a different question.

It may be but can the Minister say whether he can do anything to have these matters expedited?

Regarding the subject of acquisition the reply I have here refers to the three months-six months statutory period. However, I do not think the Deputy is referring to that but to negotiations or other attempts by the Land Commission to acquire land other than through the section 40 procedure. Obviously there cannot be a delay of more than six months as the delay can be of only three months which can be extended to six months. There would have to be a decision within six months. The Deputy must be thinking of other cases where negotiation is protracted over a long period.