asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will state in the light of the recent raffle of the estate in County Westmeath the attitude of his Department and the Land Commission to the vesting in non-nationals of this type of property in view of section 45 of the Land Act, 1965, which prohibits transfers of such property to unqualified persons without the consent of the Land Commission, who as non-nationals are not qualified until they have been resident in the State for seven years; and the attitude of the Land Commission in the event of the further spread of these raffles.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Property Ownership.
6.
An application pursuant to section 45, Land Act, 1945, for the consent of the Land Commission to the vesting of the holding in question in a new owner or owners has not been received.
Applications by non-qualified persons for consent to the vesting of lands won in a raffle would be considered by the Land Commission on the same basis as applications in respect of land transferred in the ordinary way.
The question of the control of the type of raffle referred to by the Deputy would appear to be a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Justice.
How many more farms will be disposed of in this way?
That is up to the owners. Ask the Minister for Justice.
It is obvious that the Forum is on today.
What has that to do with agriculture?
Does the Minister agree that a large tract of land has recently been disposed of by raffle? He also said that it is a matter for the Minister for Justice. Would he further agree that, due to the fact that the land has been disposed of by raffle, he had a duty to ensure that, if possible, small farmers should be located on this property instead of having it raffled? It is now intended to raffle this land again and surely it is time for action by the Minister and his Department, in co-operation with the Minister for Justice, to ensure that this situation will not continue?
That situation may not arise. The people concerned are non-nationals and they have to prove their right of establishment, that is, their intention to live here and to work the land.
7.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will draft immediate legislation to ensure that farmers that are registered owners of land will not be denied the right to divide their farms among members of their family at any time in the future; if he is aware of the serious difficulties being created for farmers and their families who are being denied their rights; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The question of amending the existing legislation relating to the subdivision of agricultural holdings is at present under examination.
Does the Minister agree that in the west there is major interest by young farmers to stay and work on the land? Registered farm holders have been denied the right to divide their farms among their sons on the basis that they would be creating uneconomic holdings. Surely these farmers should have the right and the opportunity to divide their farms among their families? Is he further aware that because they are being denied this right not alone can people not establish themselves on the land but it is also denying them the right to collateral so that they can borrow money from banks and lending institutions to build a house on the land——
The Deputy should really think about Question Time and look at Standing Orders. You have made a long speech.
In view of this, would the Minister introduce emergency legislation to ensure that registered farmers can divide the land among members of their families?
I got lost during the course of the Deputy's speech.
That is the trouble with the Minister; he is lost all the time.
I am not lost, that is the Deputy's problem——
Mr. Mitterand will get you.
I detect a departure from the bipartisan attitude by that remark of Deputy O'Keeffe. In reply to Deputy Treacy, we have to be concerned that as a result of subdivision we do not create unviable farm units. That is the major consideration which we must take into account. If Deputy Treacy knows of individual cases where a farmer was not allowed to subdivide so that his children could inherit a portion of his farm, while at the same time creating viable units, I should be glad to hear details and I will bring it to the attention of the lay commissioners in the Land Commission.
I am delighted with the offer from the Minister because I have a number of cases which have been rejected during the past year. How many sub-division applications have been rejected by the Land Commission in the past 12 months?
In 1983 there were 5,857 applications and 148 were refused. I would be in favour of a policy of leniency in regard to sub-division, particularly for farmers who are in financial difficulty. I do not think the line should be as rigid as it has been in the past. While I am not in favour of rigidity being retained, I am not saying that it should be open-ended.
Could the Minister say why these applications were refused?
There were 5,857 cases and I could not possibly give a run down. I presume the reason is that it would have created non-viable holdings.