For Lands we have 45 minutes. The Minister in moving will have ten minutes and in replying five minutes and the two Opposition parties will have 15 minutes each.
Supplementary Estimates, 1980. - Vote 40: Lands.
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £855,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December 1980, for the salaries and expenses of the Irish Land Commission, including certain grants-in-aid.
It is a joke that the Minister responsible is not here.
The Minister of State is here. The Vote must be moved by a Minister and then the Minister of State is entitled to deal with it.
The main Estimate for Lands for 1980 amounted to £9,852,000 which, with this Supplementary Estimate, brings the total net provision for the year to £10,707,000.
The Supplementary Estimate is necessary because income derived this year from the letting of lands on hands of the Land Commission is not sufficient to meet outgoings. Subhead G — which must be looked at in conjunction with subhead M (3) — is a contingency provision to meet the situation that has now arisen. Receipts from the letting of lands are paid into the rent and interest account, from which outgoings on the lands are also met. Such outgoings comprise the charge for servicing the land bonds issued for the purchase of the lands, rates, wages of herds and caretakers and such items as temporary fencing to facilitate lettings. In addition, the receipts from lettings go towards meeting part of the losses incurred on resale of lands. The balance required to meet such losses is provided for under subhead E (3).
Due to the buoyancy of letting income a call on subhead G has not been necessary in other years. The general trend has been a surplus in the rent and interest account which is brought to credit of the Vote under subhead M (3). On the basis that a similar situation would obtain for this year, therefore, only a token provision was made for subhead G. In the event, the income from lettings is down by some 20 per cent on last year. One of the reasons for this is that the area of land available for letting is lower by as much as 13 per cent as compared with 1979. This reduction is the result of the accelerated programme of allotment being pursued by the Land Commission. The level of receipts from lettings has also been affected by the difficult conditions in agriculture generally, by the poor weather in the early spring of this year — the time of year when the bulk of the lettings are made — and by the fact that estates exceeding 40 hectares are now let by private treaty to facilitate smallholders who could not be assured of securing a letting division if the public auction procedure were employed. The cumulative effect is that the expected surplus has not materialised and recourse must be had to subhead G to meet the deficit in the rent and interest account.
Receipts from contributions towards improvements expenditure and from the resale of retirement scheme lands are also less than anticipated. These come under headings 5 and 6 of subhead M. The drop in these items is, however, almost entirely compensated for by the increased receipts under the sundries heading 8 of the subhead.
The total shortfall under subheads G and M is £985,000, but as against that there is an anticipated saving of £130,000 on subheads H.1 and H.3 due to the fact that intake of land under the retirement scheme has not been of the volume estimated. When the latter savings are taken into account the net additional sum for which provision must now be made is £855,000.
There is not a great deal to be said about this Estimate in itself but it is a matter of concern that a supplementary estimate does not contain provision for a new land policy. We had been given to understand that a new land policy would be in operation by now but all we had in the past few days was a Government White Paper with no date set for the introduction of legislation giving effect to new land policy. I realise that land policy is not an easy subject but I would have thought that, given the time devoted to this by the inter-departmental committee and the very comprehensive report presented to the Government, the Government would have come forward with something more than a rewrite of the report in summary with some changes: I should have thought we would now have reached the stage of actually having legislation.
I should like to make a few comments on the Government's proposals regarding land policy. I note in paragraph 27 of the report that all land purchases will now require the approval of the Land Commission. This will lead to a tremendous increase in bureaucratic activity and I imagine endanger the operation of the auction system. If a person sells land at an auction and somebody buys it and the buyer applies for approval which is not given the person may be forced to have a new auction. There is no guarantee that the under-bidder will accept the land six months later — the probable period the Land Commission will take to give an opinion on the highest bidder's title to buy the land. There is at least the possibility that the system of free sale of land based on auction could be seriously undermined. Perhaps the Minister may be able to set our minds at rest on that subject; I hope he can.
I am very disappointed that notwithstanding the strong recommendation by the inter-departmental committee the Minister has decided to retain land bonds. In the vast majority of cases land bonds are paid to small farmers in the west of Ireland who are selling land to the commission. It is not big farmers who get land bonds but small farmers and to give them something that is not cash, something very often worth much less than its apparent face value in place of cash is to do an injustice to these people, to my mind. I am disappointed that the White Paper does not contain a clear commitment to get rid of land bonds, if not immediately, at least over a period. It is clear from the White Paper that land bonds are to be retained forever. I regret that very much, particularly in view of the type of people who will be getting these bonds instead of cash for the land they are selling which is valuable.
I am also disappointed at the passage in the White Paper on late inheritance. The Government have done very little to encourage the early transfer of land. Almost all their efforts are concentrated in the White Paper on trying to influence the direction of the small proportion of land which passes through the market place. They ignore the fact that the vast bulk of land will not go through the market place in any year and in terms of restructuring land there are far greater opportunities for improving the management of land and bringing new and better farmers into the control of it by influencing inheritance and gifts of land between people and their relatives than by trying to influence the market place. The passages in this document on inheritance boil down to nothing at all. We have a page of words but no serious proposals to bring about earlier inheritance of land by younger farmers.
We on this side of the House have made a specific proposal on this matter regarding a two-year abolition of stamp duty on transfers of land to farmers under 35 years of age who have an agricultural education. Something on these lines accompanied by a radically reformed farm retirement scheme would be necessary.
I am deeply disappointed with what is said in the White Paper regarding the farm retirement scheme. The Government have sought to put the entire onus for the reform of this scheme on the EEC authorities. They have copped out of the subject themselves and have ignored the fact that there are two specific things within the competence of an Irish Government to do that could be done to improve the scheme. If it were improved there would be a marked transfer of land to younger farmers. First, they could increase the level of pension and bring it into line with other pensions. Up to now pensions under the Farm Retirement Scheme increased in line with the cost of living, not with the level of increases in other pensions, with the result that since the scheme was introduced pensions under it have increased at almost exactly half the rate of equivalent pensions under the social welfare code. People who retire under the farm scheme are losing as against social welfare pensioners and that is an obvious direct disincentive to participation in the scheme. Bringing that pension in line with social welfare pensions would be entirely within the competence of the Government without any reference to Brussels.
Further there is nothing in the scheme about enabling people under the farm retirement scheme to get benefits under the social welfare code such as free light or electricity. If those facilities were made available to people retiring under the farm scheme, which again would be entirely within the competence of our own Government, it would have a direct effect in encouraging people to use the scheme. The Government deliberately ignored what they could do to improve the scheme and tried to concentrate all attention on what might or might not be done in Brussels. In other words, they washed their hands of trying to improve the scheme themselves.
I am disappointed about the proposals with regard to long-term leasing. I am glad a model lease is to be introduced but I am disappointed that it is not proposed to provide a financial incentive to get people involved. To get this under way, for an initial period at least there should be some form of financial incentive, whether by way of grant or tax concesion on rent. Such an incentive is needed in order to get an initial batch of farmers into long-term leasing. Once that initial impetus has been given other farmers will follow. I do not see the need for an indefinite financial incentive but, to get it off the ground, some financial imput is necessary. What is proposed here by way of model leases and giving pious advice will not work. In five years time there will not be any long-term leasing and in retrospect it will be seen that the reason was that the Government did not have courage to make financial incentives available.
I am disappointed with the attitude of the Government in regard to the division of commonages. The paragraph dealing with this matter is similar to what was said with regard to late inheritance — full of pious words, encouragement, support and so on but no concrete measures are proposed to encourage the division of commonages. We know existing instruments have not been successful in dividing commonages. The Government should have changed the rule that exists at the moment where a small minority of people with an interest in a commonage can prevent the majority from dividing it. If the Government had changed that law there would have been a rapid improvement in the division rate. This problem should have been close to the heart of the Minister of State because he knows the situation as a TD in the west of Ireland. I am surprised he did not make a change in this area.
I note that in addition to requiring all land purchase to be approved by the Land Commission there will be substantial taxes on certain categories of purchasers. Has the Minister considered in detail the effect this might have, particularly in the current state of agriculture? The Minister is aware that many farmers who are in serious financial trouble are faced with the prospect of having to sell their farms. As a result of what is being proposed now each purchaser will be scrutinised and many will have to pay a substantial surcharge. Obviously this will mean fewer people will be prepared to buy land and, in turn, it will lead to a reduction in the price of land. If land prices are halved — and this is on the cards as a result of the policy of the Government — it means that where a farmer would have been obliged to sell ten acres to pay his debts he will now have to sell 20 acres to raise the same amount of money. The effect will be even greater fragmentation of holdings and much hardship for farmers. Many young farmers will have to sell even more land in order to repay the banks. The Minister should consider this matter very carefully. I know these measures have had a long gestation period. For instance, in 1978 the problem I mentioned about farmers having to sell land would not have been a consideration one would have had to bear in mind in assessing the merits or otherwise of this kind of tax but now we know there are many farmers in such a situation. They are already in trouble but this policy could ruin them completely. Perhaps the Minister has not much sympathy for that kind of farmer, although I doubt very much if he would lack sympathy for them. I should like him to address himself to that subject, either in his reply or on some other occasion.
I wish to express my good wishes and that of my party to Deputy Hussey on his dual appointment to the Departments of Health and Social Welfare. In the job he has held I have found him to be most constructive and I mention in particular his attitude when we were dealing with the legislation dealing with plant varieties. He showed a most welcome willingness to accept ideas from the other side of the House. I hope he is glad about his new job and that he will do at least as well there as he has done in the job he has held up to now.
I should like to thank Deputy Bruton for his good wishes on my transfer to the Departments of Health and Social Welfare. I appreciate what he said. I was very happy to have had the opportunity of working with him in the past few years on the subject of agriculture. I can honestly say we got on well together and that is as it should be because both of us are concerned about the agricultural industry and would like to contribute in that area.
Here we are discussing a Supplementary Estimate for Lands and I gave the reasons in my opening remarks. It is necessary because income derived from the letting of lands on hands by the Land Commission is not sufficient to meet outgoings. The income from lettings is down by 20 per cent on last year and the amount of lettable land available is down by as much as 13 per cent as compared with 1979. Hence the reason for the Supplementary Estimate.
Deputy Bruton dealt mainly with the proposals outlined in the White Paper on land policy issued recently and he regretted that the estimate did not make provision for a new land policy. This was discussed on a number of occasions here. The Government are committed to introduce a new land policy and I am sure that legislative proposals on the matters outlined in the White Paper will be brought before the Dáil in due course.
Will the Minister deal with the points I raised?
Yes, I will deal with them as I go along. Any discussion on land policy is emotive. It takes a long time to formulate something that will be acceptable to farmers in general.
Deputy Bruton referred to the position of vendors, about whom he was particularly concerned. The operation of the land control system will be designed to ensure that no unnecessary hardship is imposed on vendors. Of course, the details will have to be worked out as regards auctions. There is no reason why a person seeking to buy should not apply for approval before the auction. As regards inheritance, the White Paper argues forcibly that this is a sensitive area and I think we all agree with that. It does not lend itself to legislative action. We would need to change the whole climate of opinion and attitudes. ACOT will have an important role to play in that.
As regards leasing, here again there is a limit to what the State can do. Like inheritance, it is largely a matter of changing attitudes. We are going to take positive action, as spelled out in the White Paper. Leasing of Land Commission land is one of the things outlined in the White Paper and that a model lease would be prepared and also that there would be a campaign of advice on the feasibility of a leasing scheme, and so on.
As regards the farmers retirement scheme, the Deputy says that the pensions have not kept pace with social welfare payments. He has not, however, adverted to the fact that annuitants under the retirement scheme get the market price of their land plus a premium.
But it was their land, anyway.
As regards commonages, since 1939 the Land Commission have power to devide a commonage where all the owners do not agree. The problem is not on the legal side but on the question of the practical application of compulsory division of a commonage. It is one thing to have compulsory powers; it is another thing to use them in circumstances where trouble would ensue. We all accept that this can happen, particularly in the case of commonages where a number of people are involved and where it is absolutely necessary to get the full co-operation of all the people before one can draw up a satisfactory scheme. From my own experience I have found time and time again in dealing with these problems that it is not always easy to get the full co-operation of all the people involved. There are always one or two people who for various reasons seem to think that they could get more than they are actually entitled to. This, in effect, stops the putting into operation of a scheme regardless of who tries to prepare it.
The Minister should have done something about it.
Vote put and agreed to.