I do not have a copy of the Bill. What does section 1 deal with?
Land Bond Bill, 1975: Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Cavan): It merely amends section 6 of the Land Bond Act, 1934, as amended by the Land Bond Act, 1969, by increasing the maximum amount of land bonds which may be raised to £60 million.
We regret that Deputy Tunney our spokesman on this matter is ill and unable to be present. I was asked at very short notice to take his place. During the course of the discussion on this Bill which, if my memory serves me correctly, increases from £40 million to £60 million the amount of money which can be used for the purpose of land bonds with which to purchase land the base was widened very much. Indeed, the Minister in his concluding speech dealt not only with land bonds but also with the pension scheme, commonages, enlargements of holdings and the farm modernisation scheme.
(Cavan): I do not think the Deputy is correct in saying that I dealt with the farm modernisation scheme. That does not come under the aegis of my Department.
The Minister was pointing out that a necessity existed in regard to the enlargement of farms. However, I do not intend to range over that wide area.
The position is that the Land Commission purchase land for the purpose of redistribution. The main point I want to make is that when one reaches a situation in which it will cost the recipient of the holding, or portion of a holding, in annuities, anything up to £90, then we will have a serious problem. This applies particularly when one considers that the main purpose of land acquisition by the Commission is to increase and make viable non-viable holdings. We may reach a stage when this will have to be looked at and alternative measures found. From my knowledge of people who are refusing now to accept an addition to their holding, it has been intimated to them—here I am talking about uneconomic holdings, very small farms—that this is the sort of figure. Indeed, the figure involved in the cases with which I have dealt has been £30 per acre. I am sure the Minister will refer to the point I have made and deal with it from experience gained to date in his Department.
Is it possible in respect of holders of land bonds which carry a low interest rate and are at a very low quotation, especially deserving cases, especially those who sold land to the Land Commission, to have any scheme which would enable them to get out and enable the Land Commission to take the land bonds from them? In the main they are poor people; they are old. They would like to get even the par value of those bonds because the interest and the market value are of absolutely no use to them. We must also consider that this land was bought 30 or 40 years ago at a very low price. Would the Minister deal with those two points?
I thought the Minister might bring in an amendment.
There are no amendments.
I thought the Minister might bring in an amendment on the question of guaranteeing the bonds. Speaking on Second Stage I made a suggestion and the Minister turned it down because of the cost of the sinking fund. This would be money well spent. If land is acquired compulsorily it must be paid for by land bonds. The new bonds are good but the trouble is that they do not carry a guarantee. They have downgraded the 12½ per cent issue and the 9¾ per cent issue. I have been repeating this constantly. When you issue a bond with a high rate of interest you immediately downgrade the lower issue and the people who have those bonds are absolutely robbed.
The man who gets land should not be charged extra per acre. He is penalised enough. The State should guarantee those bonds, redeemable at par. This would solve the whole problem. It is all right to say that we can phase them out but we cannot phase them out. We have not got the money to phase them out. It annoys me that we are not practical here. We have not got the money to continue land settlement because the only land for which we can pay in cash from now on will be land under the retirement scheme and that does not include any land set at the moment. The land which is set and not being worked is the land we would like to acquire. I can see no way of acquiring that land because people will not sell voluntarily for land bonds and therefore it has to be acquired compulsorily. According to the rules, land acquired compulsorily has to be paid for with land bonds. The Minister can contradict me if that is wrong. Therefore, we are up against the delay of having to go through the courts first to acquire it, secondly to settle the price, and thirdly to get possession.
As I said before, the recent issue of bonds was an attractive issue but it has annoyed the holders of the 9¾ per cent issue not to talk about those which are as low as 4 per cent and are not worth £30. Holders of the 9¾ per cent and 12½ per cent issues are angry because their bonds were reasonably good until the 16 per cent bonds were issued and theirs were downgraded. The only answer is on a national loan basis. I do not want to preach about it because I do not like taking up the time of the House or the time of the Minister by talking for too long.
If a man has £20,000 worth of land bonds today the Government should guarantee them at par at X years. I do not mind whether it is five, six or seven years or even ten years. If that were done there would be respect for land bonds but at the moment they stink and everybody knows that. There is no point in the Minister saying: "Your party did this or my party did that." I have been in the Dáil for two years only and if I had been here before I would have opposed this. There is no use in talking about what was done in the past. We are now talking about 1975.
I would ask the Minister to bring in an amendment. If we phase out land bonds we will do away with the compulsory purchase of land for people who do not qualify for land surrendered under the farm retirement scheme. We are not discussing that at the moment. Land which the Land Commission should acquire will not be given up because it does not come within Directive 160. I make this appeal sincerely to the Minister. The people who are getting the 16 per cent are not annoyed and it will be quite a while before they are downgraded. God forbid that inflation would go at such a rate that certain interest rates would go beyond 16 per cent. What about the people with the 12½ per cent and the 9¾ per cent issues and the people with the older issues? I would ask the Minister to set up a sinking fund and redeem the bonds at par at X years from the date of issue.
(Cavan): In reply to Deputy Cunningham, to date we have not experienced any difficulty in allotting land which we acquired at 12½ per cent. There is a great demand for that land and there has been no increase in refusals. We have always had the occasional refusal for one reason or another, for example, people changing their minds. My advice, my knowledge, my information is that there has been no increase whatever in refusals of land offered under the Land Acts.
As Deputy Cunningham knows, in what I might describe as the poorer counties where the land is not so good and where farmers are small, the annuities are heavily subsidised. They are subsidised to the rate of 50 per cent within certain limits. Up to 1965 the entire country was subsidised. The Land Act, 1965, took away the subsidies in regard to annuities in all areas except the old traditional districts. In 1973, I extended the subsidy to the 12 western counties by including Monaghan, Longford and Cavan. In the old congested district areas, plus the three counties of Longford, Cavan and Monaghan, a considerable subsidy is paid on annuities which means that the annuities are available. They are reasonable and people are anxious to take the land and pay the annuities. The only complaint I am receiving is that there is delay in allocating the land. I have done something in that regard by strengthening the outdoor staff of the Land Commission.
I regret to have to say that there is a conflict between the case made by Deputy Cunningham and the request made by Deputy Callanan. Deputy Cunningham complained that the annuities were too high and beyond the capacity of allottees to pay and Deputy Callanan requested that land bonds be issued for a shorter term—in other words, that they would be redeemable after five, seven or ten years. Were that to happen the sinking fund would have to be increased dramatically and the cost to the allottees would also be increased dramatically. I do not think that is desirable.
On a point of correction, I said the State should do it. Please do not misquote me.
(Cavan): The Deputy did not say who should do it. It can be done only by increasing the annuities.
I say it can be done without doing that and that is the difference between us.
(Cavan): I do not accept that it is not possible to phase out land bonds. I am engaged in a genuine and serious effort to phase them out. In 21 months from March, 1973, to the end of 1974, the Government provided £3¼ million for the purchase of land in cash. Let us be realistic about this. In the previous nine years the previous Government provided only £2.8 million.
What about the price of land?
(Cavan): It did not change all that much. We must call a spade a spade. In nine years the former Government provided £2.8 million; in 21 months we provided £3.2 million. In the current year we have available £3.8 million for the purchase of land in cash.
The Minister also has a farm retirement scheme.
(Cavan): Exactly, but the money to finance the scheme does not come out of the trees or the bushes or from Europe; it comes from the Irish taxpayer. When the former Government did not have to finance the retirement scheme why did they not provide money for the traditional purchase of land? The bald facts are, and no amount of argument will get over them, that the record of this Government in their short term in office in providing cash for the purchase of land is excellent and compares very favourably with the record of the previous Government. Indeed it completely overshadows it. I am prepared to go on phasing out land bonds and providing more cash each year. I hope the day will come when all dealings will be in cash but, until that day comes, I do not think this House or Opposition Deputies are doing any service to the small uneconomic farmers by encouraging people not to take land bonds. By comparison, the present land bond is the best bond ever introduced both in terms of interest and redemption period. The interest is 16 per cent. Even since this Bill was introduced the interest rate has improved because interest rates in general have come down. The redemption period is the shortest ever. It is 27 years, far shorter than the other redemption periods which were as long as 60 years. Let us sell this bond.
It is a gamble.
(Cavan): It is not a gamble in so far as 27 years is concerned. Some of the bonds in this issue can be redeemed next year or the year after.
If the people are lucky.
(Cavan): That is a gamble but there is no gamble about the 27 years. I appeal to Deputies opposite to have regard to the 46,000 farmers who can be made viable if they get more land. I appeal to Deputies opposite not to damage their chances of getting more land by defaming this particular land bond. This is the one with which we are dealing. I believe it is attractive and I believe it will go well.
I am glad to be able to say that the retirement scheme is going very well. Ninety cases have reached price stage; 90 cases have been finalised. The prices have been agreed upon and they cover 3,400 acres. That is not bad in less than 12 months. It represents about one-sixth of the total intake of land in the normal year. This is the first year of the scheme. Over 20 cases have actually gone through the legal formalities and pensions are being paid. The land is in the possession of the Land Commission.
I could make what might be regarded as a provocative political speech about this, but I do not think that would be either necessary or desirable. I believe it will be possible —I disagree with Deputy Callanan in this—to phase out land bonds in the foreseeable future but I also believe the old traditional compulsory methods are still necessary and should be retained to deal with speculators. I do not want to harp on particular cases but Deputy Lalor agreed there were abuses, especially in 1971-72, when people jumped in and bought land for £70,000 and the appeal tribunal of the Land Commission in the not too distant past fixed the price of this land at £150,000. That is gross speculation. I believe payment in land bonds is adequate in most cases and people are being dealt with fairly.
The retirement scheme deals with the small man who wants to retire. He can sell his land for cash. Some Deputy mentioned that the scheme does not apply to land that is let. It does not apply because the directive provides that, in order to qualify, the applicant must have spent 50 per cent of his time in the previous five years in agricultural employment on the farm and must have 50 per cent of his income from agricultural activities. I will be trying to get that directive changed. It is too soon yet to make a demand for a change because the scheme has not been quite 12 months in operation. Those who have land let to them do not come within the directive. If lands are let to people living away from them or in other countries there is no reason why the Land Commission cannot go in under, for want of a better word, compulsory powers and acquire that land and pay for it in 16 per cent land bonds. I would appeal to Deputies to support the 16 per cent land bond in order that their constituents who are in search of land and who require it will be able to get that land. I know that Deputies in Opposition usually see the blackest side of things—they seem to wear glasses that produce black images. I remember an Independent Deputy, who is no longer in the House, in a speech referring to Opposition Deputies saying: "Wise guys loves calamities."
I am not one of them.
(Cavan): There will not be any calamities. Last year some Deputies opposite said that cattle would die of hunger. Cattle did not die of hunger.
Thanks be to God.
I should love to have the price of all that did die.
(Cavan): I cannot thank the prayers of Fianna Fáil that cattle did not die. Many farmers were pressured into selling their cattle by gloomy speeches from the opposite benches. I am appealing for support for this Bill and am pointing out that bad advice from the other side can lead farmers into losses and I have been giving him as an example the advice they gave in respect of cattle.
On the farmer retirement scheme, the Minister said he could not alter the scheme as set out in the directive. In other words, he could not alter it in respect of conacre. Surely the Minister's statement in the House and in the country through the Press that this scheme is not the one introduced by Brussels, that it is a scheme which has been added to by 75 per cent by Central Fund subvention——
This is only incidental to the section.
This land has to be paid for. I am discussing land bonds as a method of paying for land and the debate has ranged over the purchase of land. Is the Chair saying I am not to talk at any length on the retirement scheme?
The Chair feels the Deputy is going too wide. We are dealing with the creation of land bonds.
That is what the Deputy is referring to.
I was following what the Minister said in reference to conacre, that the farmer will not be allowed to let land in conacre in future. Surely if the Minister is autonomously permitted to decrease the age limit in the scheme, to increase pension amounts, to have the scheme extend for a longer period than the directive states, then he can as well give added advances and cater for the point legitimately made by Deputy Callanan. The Minister said land so acquired under this scheme must be paid for by the Government. Is the 25 per cent subvention from EEC to be for pensions only?
(Cavan): I will deal with that.
To get back to the bonds situation, we are trying to help the Minister. We know that no Government in the past, in the present or in the foreseeable future could provide sufficient money to deal fully with the land resettlement problem which is a very large one. The farm retirement scheme is an added method of solving it. I never decried the present land bond set-up. If we can make bonds attractive there is no problem in having them as a method of payment for land. Good land bonds, which these will be, are acceptable to us and I will recommend them to everybody. However, that does not get rid of the land bond problem. If we could deal with hard luck cases in cash——
(Cavan): The Deputy wants me to clean up their mess.
The Minister is now trying to get me to water down my recommendation of the new land bonds.
(Cavan): In the national interest the Deputy would not do it.
Land bonds were acceptable in past years as giltedged securities which they are not now. That is not the fault of Governments in those days. Would the Minister take a reasonably small sum of money and redeem some of those 4½ per cent bonds at par? They are worth very little and the people who hold them have not very long to go. That is a simple request but it would help many people. An effort like this by the Minister would show that the Government are anxious about this matter, that they want to acquire land for redistribution and for the resettlement of families. As an earnest of that wish they should do what I am asking. I would urge the Minister to do something now about the urgent bond cases. The statement that he is going to phase out land bonds implies that the bonds are not worthwhile. That is not the case. The Government should indicate that they will deal with any problems that may arise because this will give some security to the people concerned.
We should take into account that in this Bill the Minister proposes a new issue of land bonds, that £20 million be made available over a period of five years——
(Cavan): There is nothing about that in the Bill. It is an enabling Bill.
The point is that it may be done.
This provision signifies that the Minister has in mind not to phase out land bonds in the next five years. I should like him to explain why it is so difficult for holders of land bonds to convert them into cash. Why is it that farmers are told by their financial advisers not to accept land bonds? The old compulsory acquisition system should be retained so that speculators will not be able to buy up land, thus keeping out local congests. I object to the indiscriminate use of stop notices being issued by the Land Commission. There must be a colossal amount of sales help up at the moment. Local inspectors should be allowed to decide on the spot whether a holding be acquired.
The Deputy is departing from the section.
Possibly one of the major reasons it is difficult to convert the bonds into cash or to have them accepted as collateral is because of the raging inflation. The Minister said he provided more than £3½ million in a short time for the purchase of land in cash. However, we should bear in mind that the price of land has increased considerably; during the period 1969-73 it increased in value by 600 per cent. Perhaps the Minister would explain why farmers are so reluctant to accept bonds and that they only do so reluctantly when the land is acquired compulsorily.
The Minister referred to the price of cattle but I do not see how that is relevant to the Bill we are discussing. However, if he wishes to do so, perhaps he would discuss the price of suck calves.
(Cavan): I was talking about advice.
I do not see how it is relevant to the Bill being discussed. If the Minister is determined to phase out land bonds it means he will be doing away with the compulsory acquisition of land. When we entered the EEC I was hopeful of phasing out land bonds because I thought we would get an injection of capital for land settlement and for drainage. These were the two arguments I used in favour of entry into the EEC. I am not blaming the Minister for what happened; I am blaming EEC policy.
The Minister is more aware than I am of what the Exchequer can afford. A sum of £3½ million has been mentioned; I should like to know how much land that would have purchased ten years ago and how much it would purchase today. It is irrelevant to talk about conditions ten years ago. As far as I can ascertain, the Minister said that the present land bonds are redeemable in 27 years. I should like him to clarify this point because this was not the case with other land bonds. Even though a period of 27 years is a long period in a person's lifetime, nevertheless it is an improvement on the system that has obtained to date. However, I maintain that period could be reduced by an injection of capital into the sinking fund.
The Minister was most unfair to me when he said I suggested the charge should be put on the rent of the unfortunate farmer. Even allowing for the fact that the small farmer is subsidised in some respects, if a man with a family of five who has a valuation under £20 finds that his valuation has increased he loses his social welfare benefits. When one considers the rateable valuation of the land plus the rent, that farmer stands to lose £500 for ten acres of land. I never suggested that person's rent should be increased. Millions of pounds are invested in other industries but an investment of a few million pounds to increase the sinking fund in order to redeem the land bonds at par would be desirable.
I never said the 16 per cent land bonds were no good but I said we must have sympathy for those who hold bonds that have decreased in value. The latest quotation shows that the 12½ per cent bond had dropped to 8 per cent. We might well ask what has happened the 9¾ per cent bond and the 4 per cent bond. Deputy Cunningham suggested we should start paying the older bonds at par. This would give some ray of hope to the holders of such bonds.
It is the injustice of the whole system about which I am concerned. At the time of issue all these bonds were ahead of other interest rates. The Government issued 4 per cent land bonds when other interest rates were only 2 per cent or 2½ per cent. They were a good bond on paper at the time of issue but because they were not redeemable at par until God knows when, nobody wanted them. It was hard to get rid of them because they were not redeemable. If the Minister is as I believe sincere in thinking he can phase out land bonds, how does he intend to purchase them and where will he get the money? Under the farm retirement scheme you can only purchase small farms from farmers who have been working 50 per cent of their time on their land over a period of years. What about the 200- or 300-acre farms which will cost five times as much, which will come on the market? Will you not have to pay for them with land bonds if you have to acquire them compulsorily?
This is happening all over the country. Such a farm will attract a large number of potential development farmers. How will the Minister pay for that? I agree with the Minister but I want to be factual. If I were shouting at the Minister to phase out land bonds but continue buying land, the Minister would say: "You cannot have it both ways". If the Minister wants to acquire land so as to satisfy to a reasonable extent a reasonable number of people he will have to acquire land compulsorily. He must acquire land that speculators are buying and he must go in for "the order". There may be too much use of orders in the case of small holdings as Deputy O'Leary says but it is a very important instrument. Much of our land could be bought by speculators but for the order. We must continue to buy that type of land and it must be paid for by land bonds on account of tax.
Could I dissuade the Deputy from making what is tantamount to a Second Reading speech?
I do not speak for very long. I just wanted to make it clear that I do not like to be misquoted. I would not misquote the Minister.
(Cavan): I do not think I misquoted the Deputy.
Yes, the Minister said that I wanted to put the cost of redeeming the land bonds on the man who got the land. Far from it—no man has spent more time than I have trying to get land for these people as cheaply as possible. I want to see justice done. As Deputy Tunney said on the first day of this debate, the people from whom the Minister is now getting land are not large ranchers. I have not much use for speculators; I would not mind giving them any type of bond but a good deal of small pieces of land are being acquired from people who are not very rich and these are the people about whom I am concerned. Previously it was from the big landlords the Land Commission would buy the land. This is a very important Bill——
But the Second Reading of the Bill has already been passed.
(Cavan): Deputy Cunningham raised the question of Directive 160 again and appealed to me to apply the scheme to farms that have been let in conacre. I repeat that if we or the Government are to derive any benefit from EEC funds, I cannot do that because the directive lays down that an applicant during the five years preceding his application, must have devoted 50 per cent of his time to farming and derived 50 per cent of his income from farming. At present there is a contribution from EEC funds of 65 per cent of the pension and I am bound to remind the Deputy that this directive, about which he is now complaining, was negotiated in 1972 and the directive in its draft form was approved by the previous Government. Let us be realistic about this because the facts on record show that the draft scheme was submitted to my predecessor——
Not the one in operation now.
(Cavan): Yes, the directive. Of course it was, in April, 1972.
Is it not open to the Government to add financially to these schemes?
(Cavan): The fact is that I have to operate under the directive until it is changed and that directive was approved by the previous Government in its present form and it ties my hands and prevents me from changing the scheme as requested by the Deputy if I am to get any benefit from Europe. I appeal to the Opposition to be realistic and not to be saying things just because they sound popular. That is not being helpful and will not, in the long run, do them any good in the country. An impassioned appeal has been made to me to redeem the 4 per cent land bonds at par——
No.
(Cavan): I understood that is what Deputy Cunningham asked me to do.
That is not what I asked.
(Cavan): These bonds were last issued in the 1940s and they have been falling ever since and if the present Opposition felt so strongly about them when in Government—these bonds were falling year after year—they could have then done, when money was more plentiful than it is now, what they are asking me to do.
If I misquoted Deputy Callanan I apologise to him, but I meant to convery that the effect of his proposal—I do not suggest he said it should be added on to the annuities—would be to increase the annuities because in fixing annuities the Land Commission must have regard to the price paid for land. If the sinking fund goes up the price of the annuities automatically goes up. The effect of what the Opposition are proposing would be that land bonds which were issued at various interest rates should now be redeemed at par.
Reference was made to national loans. I remind the Opposition that national loans were issued over the last 50 years at rates as low as 3½ per cent. During the term of office of the last Government many of them were issued for terms of 20 years and longer at 7 per cent and 8 per cent. If unfortunate people now have to raise money on foot of those national loans they will lose a considerable amount. Are Deputy Callanan and Deputy Cunningham suggesting that all those loans that have been issued by various Governments over the years should now be redeemed at par, loans issued at interest rates varying from 3 per cent to 8 per cent and now standing at various figures such as 60 and 70?
They are redeemable after 20 years——
(Cavan): The land bonds are redeemable at 27. Many of the Government and semi-Government stocks, such as ESB stock, that have been issued are not redeemable until the 90s. I want to put on the record of this House, having regard to the trend of this debate, the various sinking dates for all the issues of land bonds created in the past. The 4½ per cent land bond was repayable in 66 years approximately. The 4 per cent land bond was repayable in 47 years. The 3? per cent land bond was repayable in 39 years. The 3 per cent land bond was repayable in 34 years. The 4¾ per cent land bond was repayable in 64 years. The 5 per cent land bond was repayable in 63 years. The 5¾ per cent land bond was repayable in 56 years. The 6 per cent land bond was repayable in 54 years. The 5½ per cent land bond was repayable in 58 years. The 7 per cent land bond was repayable in 50 years. The 7½ per cent land bond was repayable in 48 years. The 8 per cent land bond was repayable in 45 years. The 9½ per cent land bond was repayable in 40 years. The 9¾ per cent land bond was repayable in 39 years. The 12½ per cent land bond, the first issue by this Government, was repayable in 33 years; and the present issue, the second by this Government, will be repayable in 27 years. That is a big improvement. Those are the facts.
That is what we said.
Order, please.
(Cavan): That is a vast improvement on the previous issues. It is not possible to redeem bygone issues of land bonds, much of which are not in the hands of the people who sold the land because they are freely saleable on the stock exchange. If a survey were carried out, I am sure it would be found that the greater proportion of people who got land bonds have sold them. As a result the bonds have changed hands many times. Does Deputy Cunningham want me to pay £100 for bonds bought by some speculator at £67, £65 or £60? That is an outrageous suggestion. I am not going to encourage speculation or put money into the hands of people who bought land bonds from the farmers who sold their land. I do not think the House would expect me to do that.
Is it then suggested that there should be an investigation into the whereabouts of land bonds with a view to ascertaining if they are in the hands of the original owners of the land, or the people who received them in payment for their land or held by people who bought them? That is neither realistic nor practicable. Unfortunately many people who invested money in issues of national loans are in the same position as the holders of land bonds if they have to realise the national loans.
Deputy J. O'Leary thinks too many section 40 notices are being served. A section 40 notice was introduced by the Land Act, 1965. Its purpose was to freeze the sale of land so that the Land Commission could have an opportunity of investigating the land with a view to deciding whether to acquire it or not. In my view, this is a necessary procedure.
I agree.
(Cavan): The section enables a stay to be put on the sale of land for three months. If the Land Commission have not made up their minds within that time, if they think it necessary they can extend the freeze for a further three months only. It would be unwise to do away with that procedure because it would lead to the quick overnight sale of land with the result that they would not be available to the Land Commission for the relief of congestion. I hope that procedure is not being abused; I do not believe it is. I do not want to be personal to Deputy J. O'Leary, but I know it is an irritant to auctioneers and to my own profession, when they get farm land to sell. They advertise it for three or four weeks and then a notice comes from the Land Commission and the sale is held up. I did not like this when I was a solicitor and I am sure auctioneers do not like it either. This is still necessary to safeguard the farms which might change hands quickly. There is a valid argument for this. As the House knows, the decision whether the land will be taken or not lies with the commissioners, who are independent.
I think I have dealt with all the points mentioned. I am happy to hear that, while the Opposition complain about previous issues of land bonds, they are happy about this issue and are satisfied it will retain its value. I hope it will be effective in getting land by voluntary purchase as well as by compulsory purchase. I repeat that land bonds can be phased out. The best evidence of this is that I am in the process of phasing them out. An amount of £3.8 million is available this year for the purchase of land. Whether it is applied under this scheme or in the purchase of land in the traditional way, it is putting a pool of land into the hands of the Land Commission for the relief of congestion. That is what Land Commission activity is all about. If we got to the happy stage where we could carry out all our transactions for cash, and that will be some time yet, we still could have compulsory powers. The fact that the land bond system——
There is no danger of that arising.
(Cavan):——goes does not mean that the compulsory system goes.
Could you stop buying land?
(Cavan): No. I will only stop buying land if I am not given this Bill because I will not have the necessary land bonds to buy land. There is a certain urgency about the Bill because the maximum ceiling of £40 million has been reached. When I was talking about the amount of money the Government provided this year, £3.8 million, nearly £4 million——
It is increasing. Earlier it was £3½ million.
(Cavan): I am not a good mathematician. Did it dawn on Deputy Cunningham that all the money provided since 1923 for land bonds was £40 million and £4 million is one-tenth of that sum. That is not bad work.
I am not accusing the Minister of being a solicitor because that is not his fault. He stands up, makes a statement and says to us: "Is that not right?" Luckily enough I registered a "No" when he said it. He said that Deputy Cunningham suggested that the 4½ per cent land bonds should be paid for in cash at par now. I replied that I did not say that. During the course of his speech I realised why he started off on that statement. Like myself he knows that these bonds and others are held by all kinds of people —financiers, solicitors, auctioneers and investors of all kinds.
(Cavan): And school teachers.
Yes, and TDs and Ministers. The exact suggestion I made is easier to carry out than the reputed one which the Minister said I made. If it is a fact that the 4½ per cent land bonds are held by the type of people he mentioned and others, people who are not in stringent financial circumstances, then what I suggested makes sense. The people who have held on to their bonds, such as old people, who kept on hoping their value would increase, should be given the opportunity to redeem them at par.
I do not want to score any political points on this as it is not such a big problem. It is a problem of hardship cases. I am sure the Minister in his capacity as a solicitor has met people who have nothing and have not very much longer to live, who have pleaded with him to have something done for the holders of land bonds, which are now worth £30 or £40 each. I do not suggest that every holder of 4½ per cent bonds should be paid in cash now. I did not suggest that at all.
(Cavan): When the Deputy gets time next week he should read what he said and he will be surprised.
The people I have mentioned now are the people I mentioned about 15 minutes ago and the Minister heard that. Is an addition of £20 million to the present figure of £40 million sufficient over the next five years to deal with land bonds? I know the Minister must find more cash for the farm retirement scheme as well as for land bonds. I do not think he has scored any point by saying that over a great number of years £40 million was spent on land acquisition and that this year £4 million will be spent. I know a man who offered land to the Land Commission, for whom I made representations that he be paid quickly. This man offered his land voluntarily. There was no question of compulsion or pressure by the Land Commission. A deal was made for £3,000 three years ago but in the meantime, because he was a comparatively old man, he decided he could not afford to wait. About a year ago he sold this reasonably small farm for £11,000.
Does the Minister consider, against that background, that £20 million increase in the Land Bond ceiling is sufficient over the next five years? Is £4 million this year sufficient? I can give the Minister details of this case. Because the Land Commission delayed too long this man was legally entitled to withdraw his offer and sell his land to somebody else. This is an example of how land prices are going up at the moment.
We have the Minister for Education saying the Government are giving so much money for education, that everyone should be happy and should thank the Minister. Last night we had the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries saying that the Government are giving so much more than Fianna Fáil gave and the trawlermen on strike should give up because they are all right. We have all the Ministers quoting figures of what was given while Fianna Fáil were in Government and what is being given this year, but this year is in the context of an inflationary situation. The trouble with the Government is that they are not infused with the mentality of creating wealth. The Minister may give very fancy figures for the acquisition of forestry land but he is dropping down in land acquisition.
I am sorry to interrupt but the Deputy is ranging very wide of the section under debate.
I am hammering at the Minister's £4 million and showing what it means in the context of land purchase. I feel the increase of £20 million will not be sufficient unless there is a cutback in this operation. This is an example of how useless it is for the Minister to put up an argument that £4 million will do relatively the same as it did some years ago. The case I mentioned about the Land Commission offering £3,000 for some land three years ago which was sold for £11,000 two years later is widespread throughout the country. The Minister will not alone need to squeeze more money from the Minister for Finance but he will need to get more bonds to purchase land. That is why I am in agreement with the 16½ per cent land bonds. The period is reasonably short and the rate is good. The Minister will not be allowed to get it across that we are against bonds. I do not suggest that he should purchase all the 4½ per cent bonds. I am suggesting that he should, first of all, get the Government's consent to do it and, secondly, indicate to those who are still holders of bonds for land that they sold to the Land Commission or who are hardship cases that the Land Commission would be prepared to redeem them at par.
Making comparisons between the amount of money that was paid in the past and what is paid now is totally irrelevant. I have experience of being an executor to a will when we sold a 30-acre farm at £4,500 for land bonds. I think it was the 6 per cent and we got rid of them at par because they were always good when they were issued. That holding of land today would be worth £15,000 or £16,000, and that is only a few years ago. I have seen certain lands sold by public auction. It is not fixed up yet. The Minister probably knows about it. It went for £13,000. It went to the Land Court and was bought at £26,000. I remember another holding of 30 acres, which was bought for £2,700 20 years ago and sold for £20,000 not so long ago. This is the way money has gone down over the years as a result of inflation.
Maybe I took Deputy Cunningham up wrongly, but I took it for granted that what he was saying was that, if these old bonds were held by the original owner who was in a hardship position, these people should be considered. None of us on this side would dream of suggesting that the man who bought them at a reduced rate and was a speculator should benefit. It was only the hardship cases we were concerned with. It would be wrong, as the Minister says, if a man bought land bonds at a very low rate on the Stock Exchange, at £20 or £30, and could redeem them at £100. Nobody on this side asked him to do that. The Minister is still talking about phasing out land bonds. This is an impossibility unless he phases out compulsory acquisition of land. To my mind it is essential to keep that going because under the farm retirement scheme you will get only a certain type of land. That scheme in 1975 is not suitable and it must be changed, no matter which Government accepted it. I would ask the Minister to try to get that directive changed, but until such time as that directive is changed you cannot touch rented land, and that is the type of land we should be trying to acquire. We have to acquire that compulsorily and we have to pay for it by land bonds.
(Cavan): I appreciate that Deputy Cunningham is not now spokesman on Lands and is probably operating under a difficulty; he did not have the Bill with him this morning. He spent some time putting forward an argument that the £20 million land bonds mentioned in the Bill is to cover a period of five years. I do not know where he got that information, because there is nothing in the Bill about five years. The Bill merely permits the creation of £20 million land bonds. They can be created next month if they are required or they may not be required at all. Deputy Callanan has just mentioned the retirement scheme again. I concede that it is not possible under the scheme to purchase land that has been let but I know it is not necessary to remind the Deputy that that land is still vulnerable under the compulsory powers of the Land Commission.
I want the Minister to continue that.
Yes, I know and I shall pay for it by the 16 per cent land bond which is now accepted by everybody as a good land bond.
At present.
(Cavan): Yes, at present. It is even better now than when it was announced, which indicates that it will be a good bond for some considerable time to come. The Opposition are playing politics in suggesting that the 4 per cent land bonds in the hand of an original holder should be redeemed at par.
If we are going to redeem the 4 per cent land bond, why should we not redeem the 3 per cent, the 3½ per cent, the 4½ per cent, the 4¾ per cent, the 5 per cent, the 5½ per cent, the 5¾ per cent, the 6 per cent, the 7½ per cent, the 8 per cent, the 9½ per cent and the 9¾ per cent—why would we not redeem the lot that have depreciated to any extent, and why not also compensate the people who invested in national loans over the years, and who find themselves now at a loss and want their capital back? The thing is ridiculous, at a time when the Opposition are telling us that our taxes are too high, that our borrowing is too high, and that our deficits are too high. I do not think the Opposition are serious, but I wish they would not take up the time of the House in putting forward arguments that are unworthy of a serious Opposition.
The object of this Bill is to purchase more land for the small farmer, to give me land bonds to acquire more land so that the 46,000 small but potentially viable farmers in whom Deputy Callanan is genuinely interested may be brought up to a viable standard. That is what this Bill is about, and the trend of the debate has done nothing to convince the people that the bond, which Deputy Cunningham says and Deputy Callanan agrees is a good bond, and that they should avail of it. I do not propose to prolong this debate any longer. I have dealt with the points that have been raised and I ask the House to give me the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration.