Land Bill, 1984 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Carey

The last day I was speaking I commended the Minister of State for bringing in this legislation. The previous Land Bill was the 1965 Land Bill. He showed tremendous courage in persisting with the Bill, particularly since land is such an emotive issue, especially in the west.

The Minister has been concerned to give equal rights to lessor and lessee and to banish some of the fears of elderly people on leasing land. He did a good job in bringing together the Irish Farmers' Association, AIB, the Incorporated Law Society and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors to draw up two model leases. These documents should allay the fears of landowners who come to lease their land. The problem is that the Minister is relying on co-operatives and voluntary bodies to spread the gospel. When drawing up the two model leases, the AIB and the Incorporated Law Society should also have been given the task of selling them. These institutions have not played a full part in encouraging people to hand over their land, in particular to younger people.

The associations which represent the young people concerned, such as Macra na Feirme, have shown down through the years their disappointment at the length of time taken to gain possession of and be able to utilise land. Since we entered the EC there has been a greater necessity to involve younger people, because productivity will be the key element in the future. There are three and a half million under-utilised acres. Experts have calculated that if this land was put into full production the amount of agricultural produce for export would increase by approximately 50 per cent. This, in turn, would create enormous employment opportunities, both on and off the farm. The Minister is proposing in this Bill to make extremely under-utilised land available to landless people. In the west, we have been bedevilled by the impossibility of giving land to all who desire it. Ownership of land is the greatest fulfilment but there has been too little attention given to whether the land is going to be productive.

The Minister for Finance, in his taxation schemes, will have to place more emphasis on productivity from land and land holdings. The cliché is bandied around whenever a Land Bill or similar legislation is introduced, that land is Ireland's greatest resource. This resource is at present under-utilised. In future, when leasing becomes more general, there will be greater productivity and more competition between farmers.

The Minister comes from an area west of the Shannon which has always had a major problem in land ownership. Even at present all the benefits available to elderly people to retire are not known about. There is need for further education and the Law Society and the banks have a major role to play in that. I appeal to the Minister to impress on these institutions the need for co-operation and education of their members. When land is being transferred from father to son the Law Society solicitors do not fully explore the Social Welfare Acts in order to point out the benefits available. That leaves the young person acquiring the land in an inhibiting position which will bear heavily on him later, especially on the death of the donor.

I commend the Minister's courage in bringing in this Land Bill. I wish him well with it in the future, but I hope that some major education process will be undertaken.

Mr. Daly

I want to speak very briefly on this Bill. While I welcome it, it is a very minor effort at dealing with the overall problem of under-utilisation of land. I am disappointed that the Minister did not avail of this opportunity to examine the reform report issued some years ago and to deal with the present major structural difficulties with regard to land.

The Bill does not tackle the problem of the total under-utilisation of thousands of acres which could be in very valuable production at present. The Bill, while useful, is not the type of measure we need at this time. It goes a very small part of the way towards dealing with the central problem in our economy of the under-productive nature of the majority of the acreage, both marginal and good agricultural land.

One of the difficulties in the area of land resettlement and rearrangement has been the discriminatory nature of some of the proposals in operation at present. In some cases when a farmer transfers his land he loses some benefits which he might otherwise have got. The whole social welfare code appears to be working against such people, especially on the transfer of land to younger people. I ask the Minister of State to take a very close look, with the Minister for Social Welfare, into the welfare arrangements applicable to farmers who are transferring their holdings. One of the major handicaps to land transfer at present is that some farmers are substantially less well-off after transfer than they should be. This happens particularly in the small farming communities on the western seaboard. Many, because they qualify for unemployment assistance, on reaching pension age are substantially less well-off. Unless and until effective efforts are made to streamline our social welfare schemes to encourage people to transfer their holdings rather than discourage them the system which we have up to now will continue. Many holdings which should be transferred will not be transferred, because farmers who are willing and anxious to do it cannot do so because of economic circumstances. There is a need to look carefully into that area to see where encouragement can be given to enable farmers to transfer their holdings without being worse off than they were beforehand.

I cannot understand the attitude of the Government that now when discussion is taking place in relation to land structure generally and land mobility they decide to abolish the Land Commission. The Land Commission have been criticised from time to time for delays in re-allocating holdings of which they had possession. In the cases I have examined in the 11 years since I was elected to this House I have found genuine and valid reasons in many case for the delays in transfers because the commission were dealing with complicated titles and issues of that nature. The area is delicate and complex and there is need for a commission who are competent to deal effectively with the problems which arise.

I cannot see how the Government can mean what they say in relation to what is being done in this legislation and at the same time abolish such a commission who now have a more important role than ever to play in our developing agriculture scene. There is still fragmentation of holdings all along the western seaboard which is hampering seriously the prospect of farm development. Now when it is necessary to eliminate handicaps of this nature an existing body who have done remarkable work up to now are being abolished. I do not believe that this Government know where they are going in this area. To introduce legislation such as this which is designed to enable better utilisation of our land and better redistribution and resettlement in the whole land area while abolishing the Land Commission who have been doing this for years and years and who leave still an enormous amount of work to be finished does not add up. Many holdings are complicated in title and the efforts of the commission are needed to rectify this situation.

I agree that there is a need for education and for going ahead with the other areas that Deputy Carey spoke about, but we cannot ignore the real efforts being made by the Land Commission in the restructuring, resettlement and breaking down of this fragmentation of holdings which has been a serious handicap to land development. When we are abolishing the Land Commission we must be very constructive in putting in their place some authority who will enable the work which has been done up to now to continue and to be expanded in the future. This legislation, welcome as it is, is really a gesture and will not really face up to the real problems. The Government seem to be going in two different directions, on the one hand introducing this type of legislation and on the other abolishing a commission who have done such tremendous work and who have still a valid and important part to play in the future in the area of land resettlement and restructuring. I am at a loss to understand where the Government are going in this. The Bill, welcome as it is, is merely tinkering with the problem and not dealing with the simple issues in the positive way that the farming community are demanding that the Government act at this time. This is just another attempt at whitewash, a very weak measure which will not go anywhere near tackling the problem in the whole land area.

Mr. Naughten

It is my pleasure to welcome this Bill and I compliment the Minister on bringing it before the House. It is very desirable legislation. Without this Bill it would be impossible to get a commitment from the farmers to co-operate with the Minister in the matter of land leasing. This measure is vital to the whole future of agriculture and to getting the commitment and co-operation of farmers towards land leasing. It is a step in the right direction over a long road that must be travelled.

One of our greatest problems at this time is the amount of under-utilised land lying very often in the hands of people who are no longer able to farm it. It is vital that the Minister encourage the total commitment of the farming organisations, Macra na Feirme, the IFA, the ICMSA and the co-operative movement to get as much of this land as possible leased to younger farmers many of whom now have agricultural training and are prepared to take risks and make a commitment to the development of Irish agriculture. For far too long too many Irish farms have remained under-utilised. The amount in use at present is over 3.5 million acres. If the under-utilised land was brought into full production one can imagine the massive impact it would have on the economy as a whole, on employment in the agri-sector and on agri-exports. As far as possible we should encourage mobility of land and this Bill will help to do that.

A question very often asked is why farmers hold so rigidly on to their farms. I believe there are two reasons. First, it gives farmers a certain degree of independence that they have this land and feel socially secure. However, another question is that of social welfare entitlements, and I appeal to the Minister to examine this. If a farmer leases or rents his farm, very often he ends up financially worse off and may very well deprive himself of certain social welfare benefits that he would be entitled to if he held on to it. I ask the Minister to look into this to see what can be done under that heading. People are made redundant in different jobs, they get lump sum payments and then they go to pay-related unemployment benefit and perhaps later on to unemployment assistance. If a farmer hands over a farm to a young man he has absolutely nothing to get in many cases. I ask the Minister to examine this. I know it will cost money, but it is vital for the better development of agriculture that we try to get as much unutilised land as possible transferred to the hands of young people quickly, and the question of social welfare entitlements will have to be examined to secure that encouragement.

Some farmers are extremely worried that if they lease land that the land will not be used as they would like it to be used. Land leasing will eliminate many of their fears. The present system of 11 months leasing was undesirable and it is questionable whether it should ever have been allowed. Very often farmers who rent land under that system just try to knock as much out of it in the 11 months as they can. The land leasing system will eliminate that. It will encourage farmers who have land leased for five, seven, ten or whatever years to invest in that land by draining, reclaiming and fertilising it. When the land is returned to the lessee it will be in better condition. Long term leasing is something all Government agencies should push to the maximum.

I welcome the Minister's statement to the effect that the people who are leasing land will no longer have to fear the lands being taken from them by the Land Commission. Those leasing land in the past were terrified that this would happen. I welcome the decision of the Minister to change the role of the Land Commission. While that agency did some excellent work in the past, changing times necessitate changes in the method of operation of the system. Very often the Land Commission, having purchased farms, left them idle for eight or ten years before settling them on the 11-month system. When they were eventually allocated the land was in bad condition and there were no fences.

The present system of group purchases is a step in the right direction and I compliment the Minister on it. Tremendous progress can be made in that area. The Minister should examine the possibility of facilitating a group involved in the purchase of land. I accept that the Minister has introduced a new provision in regard to the legal formalities but it is my view that where three farmers purchase 40 or 50 acres the commission should value each portion of land and help the farmers in every way possible. On the question of joint purchase it is of vital importance that farmers are given financial incentives. Very often we will be depending on young people to lease those lands, but if in order to lease the land they must borrow at a rate of 15 per cent or 18 per cent it will be impossible for them to make a living from that enterprise. We should examine the possibility of making low interest loans available to young farmers involved in land leasing or group purchase. Such improvements are vital for the development of agriculture. In this context we must take into consideration that it costs in the region of £15,000 to create an industrial job but a similar contribution should be made to improve agriculture. The Government should consider making a similar investment by way of subsidied loans to young people anxious to get involved in land leasing. If they get involved in that scheme they will be providing themselves with a way of living while at the same time bringing under-utilised land into production. The result will be that industrial jobs will be created downstream.

There should be a total commitment by commission officials about re-arrangements when the joint purchase scheme is in operation. That was one aspect of the work of the commission I was never happy about. Very often the commission preferred to give increased acreage to people without any commitment to eliminating the problem of fragmentation. Re-arrangement will be a vital part of the group purchase arrangement. The Minister should ensure that local farmers will receive co-operation in regard to rearrangement.

One of the major problems we may run into with the elimination of the Land Commission as a purchasing agent will be in regard to the sale of land to people who are not farmers or those who do not have any direct involvement in agriculture. The Minister should try to prevent this. It is vital that the land of Ireland stays with Irish farmers. They are best qualified to work the land and have a tradition and experience behind them. We should not encourage the sale of land to people who do not have any commitment to Irish agriculture whether by the introduction of a surcharge or some other means. Money obtained from such a surcharge could be used to subsidise young farmers involved in leasing or group purchase projects. Those schemes should get the full backing of the farm organisations and co-ops. The country faces a major social problem in that there are 220,000 unemployed and we must try to create more employment directly from agriculture.

Young farmers have not been encouraged to any great extent to remain on their farms instead of seeking industrial jobs. Very often the sons of farmers who possess 60 or 80 acres seek industrial jobs or go on AnCo training courses. In their own interests, and in the interests of the State, would those young farmers not be better off employed helping to increase production on the farm? One of the problems involved is a financial one. Very often, even with the best will in the world, a father anxious to keep a son on a farm faces financial problems because of the limit on the amount of profit that can be obtained from the land. We must try to encourage young people to stay on the land. Huge grants are available for industrial training through AnCO schemes of one description or another and the Minister should investigate the possibility of getting young farmers to participate in those schemes with a view to continuing to work on the land.

I appeal to the Minister to endeavour to get approval for a scheme of subsidied loans for those involved in group purchase or land leasing. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that huge sums of money have been left unspent under the western package. That money should be utilised to encourage the leasing or group purchase of land in the form of subsidised loans for young farmers. I compliment the Minister on this worthwhile piece of legislation.

Mr. Farrelly

I compliment the Minister on having introduced this Bill and on the work done by himself and the organisations involved in the drawing up of this new leasing arrangement. We are aware that over the years the Land Commission played a major part in the division of under-utilised land, in taking land from non-productive farmers for subdivision amongst smaller farmers in order to improve their holdings.

I believe the proposals of this new leasing arrangement are worthwhile. In recent years there has been less land taken over by the Land Commission, due mainly to its price. These new proposals should ensure that such land is given to productive farmers, whether they have small or medium sized holdings, thereby ensuring a proper return from such land over a period of five, seven or nine years and that they will get that land back at the end of that period. As has already been said, in many cases when they get that land back it will have been improved and in much better condition that when it was first leased.

In my county small portions of land are at present being leased under the new system. If we are to cater for farmers nearing the age of retirement, say 65, we must give them some incentive to avail of this new system of leasing their land. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that an incentive will be given which will mean that the first £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000 income from the letting of such lands in any one year be tax free, at the same time ensuring that the lessors of such property over a period of, say, five, seven or nine years will remain eligible for a pension. Such an exercise would not cost the State any money in real terms because none of the people about whom we are talking, who possessed non-productive land, has a taxable income anyway. By ensuring proper usage of such land the country stands to benefit from a greater return from it. We must guarantee some incentive to those people who heretofore did not avail of the retirement scheme because they feared it would leave them with less security.

If this scheme is to be successful in replacing the Land Commission method of getting land into the hands of more productive farmers, then such an incentive must be given. I would suggest that the first £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000 income in any given year be non-taxable, constituting an incentive to farmers and yet costing the State nothing in real money terms.

There are many older farmers — I am thinking now of those in my constituency — for whom there would be no incentive to participate in such a leasing system, most of whom will have been letting their lands on the 11-month system. That 11-month system of leasing ensured that lessors were given back that land on 1 December each year, being free then to do whatever they wanted with it the following year. As a result, many lessors failed to avail of the retirement scheme which had been available to them. The 11-month system did not permit a lessee to make the best use of that land but rather to get the most out of it for that year without improving its condition through the use of fertilisers and so on. This meant also that the condition of the land remained static over a period of nine or ten years. Under the proposed new leasing system this land will be given to productive farmers for a period of five, seven or nine years, to people who will care for it as though it was their own. At the same time it guarantees that the lessors stand to benefit. They will receive an income and still remain eligible for an old age pension. It will ensure also that younger people, say widows, not utilising the land in their possession will have an outlet, ensuring that that land will be available to their families in five, seven or ten years time. There must be some headway made in regard to this type of leasing and, if such an incentive is not given in the next three years, then we shall not see this land leasing scheme take off as we would wish it to.

Because of the relief allowed in regard to stamp duty inheritance tax in recent years there have been large tracts of land throughout the country changing hands, mostly to younger farmers, mostly sons of farmers. This constituted a step in the right direction, guaranteeing that more land got into the hands of younger farmers at very little cost to the State. Many people forget the value of our agricultural exports. In this respect also, the more land transferred to younger farmers the greater will be the value of our export market, thereby reducing our balance of payments deficit.

With the right incentives being given I am convinced we shall see large tracts of land throughout the country changing hands under this new leasing system, when the entire nation will stand to benefit because of increased production and a greater export potential. We shall then also be moving away from the old 11-month system which, though not a bad system protected an individual farmer who wanted always to ensure control over the ownership of his land.

There has been reference to the role played by the Land Commission over the years. I am convinced the reason they have not played such a large role in regard to the division of land in recent years has been the price that had to be paid for tracts of land which they were interested in purchasing. They ensured that a large number of small farmers got proper holdings and were able to provide a living for themselves and their families. I should like to see the inspectors work positively to dispose of the 40,000 acres of land which is still in the hands of the Land Commission. I would not like to see a situation develop where we would not continue to give out land. The fact that land is in possession of the Land Commission means we have a duty to ensure that it is put into the hands of farmers in need of it as quickly as possible.

As a result of ACOT we have a very effective system of giving advice and so on to farmers. The sooner we establish the land leasing system the better, because we have the mechanism to ensure that farmers get proper advice. If we distribute the land it will mean that we will have greater production and that in turn will help the economy.

I compliment the Minister on the group purchasing scheme. Over a period of eight months there have been 118 different purchase schemes. This has taken over the role of the Land Commission. Under the group purchasing scheme a number of farmers in need of a portion of land come together to purchase land which comes on the market. If the scheme is to continue perhaps we should consider the introduction of an interest subsidy for small farmers. I was involved in one or two such purchases this year for a number of local farmers and they see it as a way forward. Regardless of what land costs and what the State has to pay for it, it would not cost the State as much if it gave a small interest subsidy to people with small holdings who would then be in a position to purchase more land and increase their holdings. Perhaps something on the lines of the Housing Finance Agency loan could be investigated. This would mean that small farmers would only have to pay a portion of their income in repayments. If these areas were investigated we would get better results in our balance of payments and in production generally.

If land leasing is to be successful we must give incentives to farmers. If farmers are prepared to lease their land, particularly those who are near retirement age, perhaps we could consider giving them the first £3,000 or £4,000 tax free and still allow them to be eligible for pension. In that way there would be thousands of acres of land available for leasing. Farmers would be assured that they still owned the land and could give it to members of their family whenever they wanted to. I ask the Minister to do all he can to ensure that incentives are given. The proposal I have just made should also be extended to widows. This would allow them to earn £4,000 or £5,000 a year tax free and still retain their land for their family when they became of age to work it. Land could be leased to people who are willing and able to get a return from it.

We have had a very successful tillage year this year, particularly as far as corn is concerned. There are large amounts of land in tillage areas which could be made available under this scheme. We, as public representatives, have a role to play in this. If the 40,000 acres which the Land Commission hold were transferred to developing farmers at least half a million acres of land would be available for leasing if incentives were given. There is no point in introducing legislation unless incentives are given to the people who own the land. If we do that we will reap the benefit of it in terms of the return that will be got from that land. I compliment the Minister on the strides that have been made by him in two years and we look forward to continuing strides being made in this area.

Mr. Kirk

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on this Bill. It is probably one of the most important Bills to come before the House. No one underestimates the function that land plays in the development, operation and wellbeing of our economy.

Land is basic to our survival. It is fixed in its location and, unfortunately for a number of people who would like to own it, it is limited in supply. We are bounded by seas on all sides so the opportunity to increase the availability of land is hindered in that respect. In modern societies land is used for a number of different functions apart from being the primary production base for food. The availability of land for housing, utility and services, not to mention the development of roads, and for factories is something that we tend to overlook. There has been a gradual erosion of our land bank by these things. They are part and parcel of the development of our economy. However, we should not underestimate the impact this has on the total acreage of land available for agricultural cultivation.

I have always believed that the policies pursued by every Government should be to maintain the maximum number of people on the land. This is our greatest natural resource and we should maintain as many family farm holdings as possible. Unfortunately, all the indicators have shown that there has been an accelerated decrease in the numbers involved in agricultural production and in the industry generally over the last ten or 12 years.

The maximising of the productive capacity of the land is the kernel of this Bill. Since we joined the EC and got increased prices for our agricultural products people have been encouraged to look at marginal land. Technology has helped bring a great part of this land into productive use. This is an ongoing process which I hope will continue to be encouraged. The farm modernisation scheme and the grant scheme which preceded it encouraged the improvement and reclaiming of this marginal land to bring it into the productive land bank. The expansion of our acreage under forestry has taken place on marginal land. The potential for the development of afforestation and sound industry based on afforestation is very real. I hope the Minister with responsibility in this area will recognise the potential for employment in afforestation as well as the development of the processing industry.

Another area we tend to underestimate is the energy field. We do not think of our bogs as part of our land mass, but they are. They have been a very valuable source of energy down the years. While the research and development work in the area of biomass is at a preliminary stage, I would like to think that the State agencies with responsibility in this area will get the money and resources needed from the Government to apply themselves in this area. It is an open secret that the crisis which occurred over the last ten years upended our economy. All efforts should be channelled towards the procurement of different sources of energy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I agree that trees grow on land, but the Deputy is moving away from the Bill.

Mr. Kirk

I felt I had to make that point because it is very relevant to land use and land structure.

Livestock rearing, cereal growing and the cultivation of root crops have been our principal agricultural lines and there is no indication we will move from those areas to any great extent. They have served the industry well. An Foras Talúntas have done a tremendous job in the area of research and development and they have helped increase the productivity of many of these crops. They have contributed greatly to the economic wellbeing of those involved in the industry.

Recently there has been a very steady trend towards part time farming. The concept of a person working in industry while rearing a family on a small holding has become very attractive because the farm holding is unable to sustain the family economically. The trend towards part time farming has been accelerated and all indications are that it will continue to accelerate in the foreseeable future. The average size of the family holding dictates that it will no longer be economically viable for these farmers to devote all this time to their farms. For many centuries our land was relatively underdeveloped and it was only when we became part of the EC that the necessary cash flow became available for the development of these holdings.

Another worrying trend has been the increase since the sixties in the number of land holders as distinct from farmers. Land has been bought by people whose primary occupation is not farming. Many small holders have been deprived of access to land which could have been a lifeline for them, because the land was bought by people who made their money outside farming. If that trend continues it will have very serious implications for the industry and could accelerate the flight from the land. Farmers, as distinct from land holders, occupied 1.5 million acres fewer in 1971 than they did in 1961. That illustrates the movement of land to land holders who are not farmers. In the same period it was estimated that 276,000 acres were taken out of agricultural production for commercial, industrial and afforestation purposes. That is a very significant figure because it shows that there is a decreasing amount of land available for agricultural purposes.

I would like to deal now with the land tenure system, the farm size and fragmented holdings, that is, where a small holding is complemented by another small holding a few miles down the road. While this might be a satisfactory arrangement to an extent, it does not maximise the productive capacity of the farmer in question — the amount of time he spends travelling between his two holdings, the lack of supervision and so on. These are hidden flaws which we tend to underestimate.

The land structure system we have is merely a reflection of the historic, geographic, economic and social evolution that has taken place. It is really a product of our history. The different types of land occupancy we had that came from the Brehon Laws era and the evolution that has taken place during the years has left us with our present set-up. Perhaps this Bill will introduce a new element into the whole area of land mobility. There is general agreement that there is urgent need for reform of land tenure and land structure to maximise the economic benefits to the economy as a whole. In many ways we have been the victim — perhaps that is not the best word — of the concept of security of occupancy. This is very much a sacred thing in rural Ireland. History has taught people that having a holding gives a sense of security. Perhaps it is not viewed in the strict economic sense but in the sense of security given to the farm family. The memories of the old tenant system live on in many parts of the country and they tend to create a great fear in the minds of many farmers.

Land mobility is a very desirable objective. It will be achieved not as a result of any one measure but by a number of different measures that will complement one another. Traditionally, inheritance and succession have been the principal vehicles for change of ownership and land mobility but this is slow and cumbersome and does not provide the opportunity for the social reform that the Government and those who have a deep interest in agriculture would like to see achieved. However, it is a fact of life and it will remain with us.

The concept of providing resources to encourage land leasing is new. If it will help in any way to break the mould of the one to three year conacre system it will be worthwhile. If any one factor has militated against the development of agriculture it is the conacre system. The person who takes the land on conacre has no incentive to improve it or to carry out the necessary development works and the upgrading of the land that is so necessary. He has no incentive to spend money on fertiliser, lime or seeds. If the concept of land leasing improves the situation it will be worthwhile but I remain to be convinced that it will to any great extent bring about the desired improvement that we all wish to see.

We all agree on the desirability of a farmer handing over his farm to his son or daughter, particularly when that young person has availed of the educational courses in agriculture during recent years. The sooner such young people are encouraged to take over the management of farms the better. However, we must not disregard the need for judgment in this area. Youthful enthusiasm needs to be balanced with the experience gained during many years of hard work on the land and this combination should provide the ideal solution. In many cases it does not because of the different approaches of the old and the young which have militated against a successful operation.

The encouragement of the farm partnership arrangement in recent years should be continued to the benefit of the operation of holdings. However, it has proved difficult to blend the ideas of the young and old in many cases. The retirement of a farmer at 60 or 65 years as distinct from controlling the holding until he reaches 75 years or 80 years is a worthwhile objective but I am afraid this Bill does not deal with that matter. Perhaps the kind of legislation necessary may prove difficult but that fact should not preclude us from doing something to help in this area. For a farmer who has reached retirement age the matter of security of holding is very important. We will have to wait and see if it will be possible to introduce a proper pension scheme to replace the sense of security that ownership gives. The Minister must give consideration to this matter which should have top priority. We will need to do something on these lines if we are to have the kind of land mobility that is necessary.

I may have strayed somewhat in my contribution but I have expressed a few thoughts regarding this Bill.

Mr. McCartin

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.

Mr. M. Brennan

I want to speak very briefly on this Land Bill and compliment the Minister on bringing it before the House. One wonders how suitable it will be in some parts of Ireland and, in particular, in the west of Ireland and in parts of my constituency where land can be used for a few months of the year only. This was an exceptionally good year and the land in that part of Ireland was used for a longer period than ever before.

I deplore the Government's decision to abolish the Irish Land Commission. They tried to justify their action on cost cutting grounds, alleging that the Land Commission had outlived their usefulness. In the 11 western counties which come under the farm modernisation scheme, 80 per cent of the farmers have less than 50 acres, and 41 per cent have less than 30 acres, which is well below the acreage necessary to give an average standard of living. Yet the Land Commission are being abolished. This will have an effect in the west in particular where we have that percentage of small farmers. I do not agree with that decision. When the Land Commission are abolished, when farms come on the market for sale, the wealthiest people will buy that land. Whether or not you live in a congested area, it is the wealthiest people who will buy the land. As I said, I deplore that decision, especially as it will affect the west.

I am the owner of a 30 acre farm. How can anybody think you could make a living on a 30 acre farm today in an area where the land is not very good and where it badly needs to be drained? Recently the IFA wrote to all Deputies deploring the fact that the Department have refused to accept applications for drainage since February 1984. To all intents and purposes there is no field drainage scheme in operation in the western counties. Farmers who want to do such work have no possibility of getting State or commercial assistance at present.

The IFA had a meeting in Dublin recently with Commissioner Dalsager who said he was very concerned that the Irish Government should make an application for an extension to the western drainage scheme. We are talking about land leasing when, unfortunately these schemes are not available. I know they are mentioned in the national plan as being available in two years' time. Why are they not available at the moment? They have done wonderful work. I am sure the Minister sitting opposite to me knows that better than anybody else, because he comes from the west. Arterial drainage work was carried out and farms were improved immensely. The quicker we get a policy on land drainage and arterial drainage the better. When Deputy MacSharry was Minister for Agriculture he had such a policy.

I should like to highlight those few points and ask the Minister to do what he can. I am not here to criticise him or any member of the Government. Those policies were of immense benefit to the farmers in the west. A big drainage scheme is needed in my own constituency. If the Arrow and Owenmore rivers were drained the farmers in that catchment area could produce much more milk, more beef and more sheep. We need land reclamation and re-seeding of the land, especially for sheep farmers. This would lead to massive increases in output because the sheep could be fattened and sent to the French and Italian markets where there is an outlet for them.

Land leasing is very well suited to parts of the country and particularly the areas where the land is better. Where land can be used for a few months of the year only, one wonders how suitable this Land Bill will be. Deputy McCartin comes from my own constituency and I have a great admiration for him. He said that in Germany the Government were helping farmers and part time farmers and giving them grants to work their farms. Until the last few years, the Government have been encouraging part time farmers by giving them good grants. Today, if a farmer earns more than £3,500 on a part time job — and what person is working today for less than that amount? — he will not qualify for sheep or cattle head-age payments or any grant of that kind. This is a shame. Small farmers working with the county council earn £5,000 a year, as does a forestry worker and a factory worker. These people are deprived of what Deputy McCartin said they were entitled to in Germany. Our part time farmers should be encouraged to do more with their land and the few pounds they got from these grants were very encouraging.

At present an application has been made to the European Parliament with regard to the reclassification of disadvantaged areas. Unfortunately, the entire reclassification programme will be delayed for at least one year because the Government did not submit the necessary documents. That is shameful. The North Connacht Farmers and Donegal Creameries have been working for many years to have the disadvantaged areas, which include west Cork and all the western seaboard, reclassified so that the farmers there will receive the same grants as their counterparts in France and Italy. The UK have made an application to have their land in the disadvantaged areas reclassified. No area is more disadvantaged than our western seaboard. The whole mountain range from west Cork to the top of Malin Head needs to be reclassified so that the farmers will have the best benefits, grants and subsidies available. They need them to live in this part of rural Ireland.

I know the Minister is well aware that unemployment assistance has very severely hit the small farmers in that area. I hope, a Cheann Comhairle, that I am not wandering away from the subject under debate.

An Ceann Comhairle

I was just beginning to wonder if you were at the wandering stage.

Mr. M. Brennan

It is all part of the farming structure of the west.

Mr. Connaughton

This is a long way from land leasing.

An Ceann Comhairle

I hope that the Deputy will relate it to leasing.

Mr. M. Brennan

Farmers are now losing the small subsidy which they have been getting from working their farms. Unfortunately, the present system of unemployment assistance will make the farmers very poor for the winter. They would be quite happy——

An Ceann Comhairle

If I may intervene, a discussion on unemployment assistance would be relevant in so far as it related to a rent that a lessor might get from the land. Perhaps the Deputy could bring that into his argument? However, a discussion on small farmers' dole on its own would not be relevant.

Mr. M. Brennan

If small farmers lease their land, that money will be taken into account when they are being assessed. The farmers who have been sending milk to the creamery will find it very difficult to survive in the winter months without that form of assistance known as the farmers' dole — unemployment assistance. Regardless of whether they lease or buy land or develop land which they are using, they will suffer hardship. A farmer with a wife and five children who has seven milking cows has lost his unemployment assistance because of the small amount of money which he makes in the few summer months. If these farmers had some type of assistance during the winter months, they would be quite happy to lose that assistance while the milk is good for the summer months.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would be more relevant to a debate on an Estimate. I do not want to harass the Deputy, but he will have to relate his remarks about unemployment assistance to the Bill.

Mr. M. Brennan

We all welcome the proposal of land leasing. As we all know, an 11 months system was in practice, which was unsuitable. The farmer who leased land for five years would build up a standard of living in that period and might have extra cattle, but when he loses that land one wonders what he is going to do. I hope that some policy will be introduced to enable that man to continue to survive.

Now that the Government have decided to abolish the Land Commission, I hope that something will be done to protect the farmers in the areas in the west where 80 per cent of the farmers have less than 50 acres and 41 per cent have less than 30 acres. If a farmer with a 30 acre farm wishes to buy an adjacent 30 acres, I hope his entitlement to it will be put before that of some wealthy foreigner. This is going to be difficult, but if we want to keep farmers interested in staying on their land, something will have to be done now that the Land Commission has been abolished.

Mr. M. Ahern

I should like to say a few words on this Land Bill. After many months of conditioning as to the great revolutionary land reform that was to be brought in under this Bill, what have we got? We have a damp squib. This Bill was to be the panacea for all the ills of retiring farmers and for the young people looking for new land. It has failed to do anything for those people, despite the publicity which went on over the last year or so.

The Bill removes some of the legal and technical obstacles to leasing, but it should encourage land leasing and this it fails to do. The measures in the Bill will give adequate safeguards to both lessor and lessee regarding ownership of land and fair rent, provisions for the review of rent and some compensation for the lessee who provides farm buildings on the holding or improves it. There is also provision for arbitration in cases of differences arising between the lessor and lessee. These measures are welcome and are not before their time, but are they sufficient, are they far reaching enough to encourage people to transfer and take up land? I believe they are not. What do people need when they wish to transfer or lease land? They need safeguards to assure and convince them that when they transfer or lease their land they will not be worse off financially for the rest of their lives. The Bill goes some way towards meeting this need for those who will lease their land. However, as most of the land in this country moves between related persons it is in the field of transfers that attention should be directed. The social welfare system generally does not encourage the transfer of land between relations. Conditions laid down by the Revenue Commissioners, such as reversionary clauses and conditions in the transfer deed regarding payments to other members of the family when, say, parents are transferring the land to one son, can prevent those parents from qualifying for an old age pension. Such obstacles are inhibiting many parents from transferring the land. This matter should be looked into in detail with a view to making the transfer of land easier. Of course conditions must be laid down but the present conditions are too strict.

The farm retirement scheme has not been as successful as was envisaged because the increases in the annuities fell behind the increases in the old age pension and social welfare benefits. People who went into the scheme have lost out and it is no wonder that now the scheme has died. It is essential that a comprehensive, attractive and realistic retirement scheme be put forward to encourage land transfer. Many young people who have been educated in agricultural colleges and have served their apprenticeship on farms are now wondering what to do. They are over-qualified and under-paid farm labourers who should be managing farms or running their own farm businesses, but they face great obstacles. Even if they meet a farmer who is willing to lease a farm to them, they must come up with finance. The financial position today is very difficult and the extremely high rates of interest are a deterrent to anybody going ahead with a great risk enterprise such as farming. One experience of bovine TB or brucellosis or a bad winter can wipe out a person's investment. A policy should be introduced whereby young people going into farming would be able to get long term, attractive, fixed interest rate loans. At least then they would know what their commitments would be over a certain time and would not have to depend on the market rate. The sad experience of the last ten years has been that interest rates rose alarmingly and knocked many farmers out of business. The policy I have suggested would encourage young people to take the risk.

At present with milk quotas, super-levies, beef mountains and sugar and beet quotas, what is a young person entering farming to do? What is he going to produce? Is it more beef, more milk, more beet, more grain? There is a surplus of all these products on the market today. A person would be taking a great risk in going in on the offchance that he would be able to break into these markets and make a success there. The Department of Agriculture should look at other products and consider initiating a policy under which horticultural development would be examined. Widespread training of young people in marketing, production and processing by the semi-State organisations such as ACOT, the Agricultural Institute, the IDA, CTT and the Department of Agriculture should be considered. We should be able to take advantage of products and markets in the horticulture field. We are importing vast amounts of agricultural produce and a real effort must be put into import substitution by Irish products. Here is a chance for young people to make a success of farming. ACOT have a big role to play in this development, but at the moment their hands are tied. They have been directed to devote their services to a narrow band of better off farmers who are in the best position to pay for their services. Many small farmers who are rearing and educating young families are being neglected by this anti-social policy which in the long run will stunt farm production. It will stop people from such families from leasing land because they will not have the means to pay for advice from ACOT, therefore they will be unable to lease land. ACOT should aim at the broad mass of farmers and not, as at present, at the privileged few.

A policy of central control, such as that of the Land Commission, should be considered with a view to helping the young people in the distribution of land. More power should be given to local committees of agriculture. Over-centralisation can stunt the development of leasing as people in a central bureaucracy tend not to know the details of each situation.

This Bill fails to tackle the serious problems affecting land distribution. Its contents, though correct, will do nothing to promote the transfer and proper utilisation of our land resources.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture (Mr. Connaughton)

I should like to thank Members who contributed to the debate on the Bill in recent weeks. As one might expect in regard to any legislation dealing with land the Bill evoked a great deal of interest here and in the Seanad some months ago. There has been a welcome for the Bill from all sides and that is as I had hoped. Many side issues were referred to in the debate on other aspects of agriculture which though very important are not relevant to the Bill. In the Bill I set certain targets and I believe they can be attained. Its provisions will mean that there will be a new concept in agriculture. The whole area of land leasing has been mentioned frequently in the last 20 years but for some strange reason in those years no Government saw fit to bring to the House a Bill to implement the suggestions put forward by various committees that considered land leasing.

Land leasing is a new concept here. I must make it clear that the terms of the Bill are not confined to any area. It appears that some Members from small farming areas, like mine, believe that the Bill will apply to the north-west only. That is not true. Up to now land rented for a period in excess of 11 months was subject to certain conditions. Under certain circumstances the tenant was not obliged to leave that land on the expiry of the lease. The important point is that I can give a categoric assurance to farmers who believe that their best interests will be served by getting into medium or long term leasing that the contract entered into with a tenant will be binding and that on the expiry of the lease they will get their land back. That is the central message in the legislation. Tenants will have to accept that whatever deal they enter into with farmers they do not have a right to be on the land after the expiry of the lease. I hope that through Members, the media and the farming organisations that message will get across.

There is a great suspicion among many farmers that if they enter into medium or long term contracts they may not get their land back. The Bill sets out to repeal legislation that goes back to 1881. The only criticism that I can accept of it is in regard to the length of time it has taken to produce it. It is almost 18 months since I set about having this legislation prepared and at that time I had hoped to have it before the House six months later. However, it has proved to be a complicated exercise in that we had to go through all land legislation. The leasing arrangement will open up new avenues for many farmers. A great deal of energy has been expended here outlining the aspirations of young farmers but they are not the only people that will be helped by the provisions of the Bill. It is well known that in the last four or five years many farmers over-extended themselves on land purchases. For whatever reason, possibly the air of optimism that existed, it did not appear to make any difference what price a farmer was asked for land as long as he bought it. The view was, "Every day will be rosier than the one that went before". In this harsh world many very good farmers have found themselves in great trouble for no other reason than that they bought land that was too expensive.

I am opening up a new avenue for those people. There will be another way for people to work farms without owning the land. This happens in other EC countries to a greater degree than here. One message I should like to get across today is that under certain conditions people can make a living from land leasing. I must admit that the individual will have to be highly trained and have a good back up service from his family farm. However, I am creating an environment whereby there will be sustainable jobs in agriculture for those who want to work on the land without owning it. There are many farmers living on uneconomic holdings who have a stark choice now. Unless they get extra land or an off-farm job they will be in trouble. Land leasing in such cases will help those farmers.

It appears that the duration of leases will be between five and seven years. Last year there was a great deal of activity on land leasing. Farming organisations are very interested in this and that was evident at the many seminars I attended. On occasions up to 600 farmers attended those seminars. Last year two master leases were introduced. When I was a member of Macra na Feirme 12 years ago, I went on a deputation to a Minister for Agriculture in an effort to get the Land Commission to make master leases available. The leases were made available through the good offices of the IFA, the Incorporated Law Society and the ICOS. They represent complicated documents for a person who would not understand what was taking place. I want to make it clear that all that is involved is a master lease from which we can work. In the last ten years there has been reason to believe that, if two farmers wanted to enter into a contract for medium to long term land leasing, it was quite difficult to get the legal profession to have much to do with it. It was an area in which the legal profession were not particularly interested. Now that there will be the master leases all solicitors and legal people can work from them. That is a most important point.

There has been another important development both last year and this year to date in that many co-operatives became involved in the land leasing business. In my view they are well equipped to become so involved because their structure is composed of farmers' share-holdings, going on from there right up to the management committees. They deal on a commercial basis with many hundreds or thousands of farmers in a given area on whom they rely to sustain their creameries with milk or their marts with cattle and sheep. It is in their interests to ensure that there is more livestock passing through their hands each year. Therefore there is great interest on the part of many creamery and mart committees in devising what might be termed loosely a sort of marriage bureau, in that they place themselves in a position through their shareholders of knowing farmers who have land to lease and those farmers who want to rent such land. That procedure worked extremely well. But because of the legal constraints — that is until this Bill has been passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas — it meant that such arrangements were not absolutely legally binding on both parties. Therefore many of such people have been awaiting the passage of this Bill.

There are a number of other points worthy of mention. Another category of people to whom this Bill will bring good news is — indeed we talk about them in this Chamber every day of the week — families with sons or daughters unable to obtain a job off-farm. Therefore land leasing, as I am promoting it, will certainly widen the horizon for a first or perhaps second son of many a farmer, particularly the larger type farmer. With the back up service that he or she will receive at home, with the machinery and ancillary services, they will be in a position to lease land in their neighbourhood, conscious of the fact that they have all of those backup services to overcome financial problems and ensure a sustainable livelihood. That is something to which insufficient attention was paid in the past and I foresee a fair number of young people obtaining jobs in that way.

Many Deputies have said that the Bill is to be welcomed but made the point that there were several things I had not done. The primary purpose was as I have stated, but there are other aspects I would accept warrant examination in the future in so far as the whole land business is concerned. There was much ado in the last week about the Government decision to abolish the Land Commission. I would have to describe that as the shedding of crocodile tears. Since I was knee high I have been hearing one body after another contend that the Land Commission were not serving a useful role in a modern, agricultural State. Yet, when the decision has been taken to abolish them, crocodile tears begin to flow all over the place, indeed even on the part of Deputies representing counties in which the Land Commission have not been active in the past five to ten years. The view I have always taken is that it does not make any difference whether there exists a body like the Land Commission provided that an effective, imaginative land policy is pursued by whatever agency exists at any given time. As the House is aware, it will be the Department of Agriculture who henceforth will operate a land policy in this country. Since the decision was taken to incorporate the Land Commission into the Department of Agriculture in 1977 that trend has obtained.

When I assumed office practically two years ago I found the whole of the land structural side of things in a rather sorry state. Indeed, it can be contended that successive Governments over many years had decided to wind down the acquisitions sections of the Land Commission. As official figures will demonstrate, the number of acres, or hectares acquired by them in the last four or five years diminished annually until we arrived at the position a year ago in which there was no more land acquired. There are many reasons therefor and I do not want to delay the House by going into them in detail, but I do want to answer some of the criticisms levelled here in the last few days. First, because most large estates have now been divided, obviously the same degree of interest did not exist for having the Land Commission acquire small parcels of land, that is not to say that on occasion such was not quite important to local congests. But there are many ways of doing the same thing and there are better ways of helping smaller farmers without costing the taxpayer something of the order of £400 or £500 an acre to acquire and distribute such land, sometimes constituting half the price of the land involved. In such harsh financial times no Government could allow such a system to continue. Needless to say, the Land Commission have done a fine job throughout the country over the years but there are new methods, new programmes, that can be adopted. For example, we can learn from what has been done by our European neighbours.

What I have endeavoured to do in the course of the last two years was to introduce schemes that would be less costly to the Exchequer, to the taxpayer, at the same time ensuring that we helped the type of person about whom Deputy Brennan spoke. I accept that he has sincerely held views. I come from that area and am aware of the types of pressures prevailing there, but there does exist a better, more efficient way of doing that type of thing than the implementation of the acquisition programme. This meant paying land bonds nobody wanted, waiting four or five years for the land involved to be allocated and, at the heel of the hunt, because of the laws obtaining — again through no fault of the Land Commission — and because of the social implication, many persons throughout the country who acquired land through that process did not actually work it, or even the land they had possessed already.

The first and essential part of any land policy is land usage, to get into production every possible acre lying under-utilised. Thereafter one talks about the social implications in regard to the business of land structure. I must acknowledge that, for obvious reasons, they are extremely important. In the future we must ensure that land gets into the hands of the people best able to work it. That is something that has been repeated over and over again and which rings hollow at this point. It is important that we identify the types of persons in the future most likely to use the land available. Bearing in mind the social implications about which I speak, the first people to be identified in this respect are those fulltime farmers who must make a living from the land and who can show through their endeavours that, with additional land acquired, they will become self-sufficent, will not constitute a burden on the State but rather will become self-propelled. They are the type of people who should have the first opportunity in relation to any land that becomes available.

I subscribe to the view that the State should have some say in the overall control of land sales on the open market. I would have to acknowledge that it is a very difficult and complex area. One must acknowledge at all times the right of the owner to get the best possible price on the market. That is enshrined in the Constitution and this Government will not do anything to undermine that right. At the same time it is only proper, because of the social implications, to have some curb or control on persons from outside farming who might not have the same expertise or agricultural education, and I am working on items which will go into the heads of a Bill to bring about a certain control of that nature. I should like to see such a scheme being free from unnecessary impediments but the level of control should be such as to give the smaller farmer a chance of getting land.

It should have been apparent during the past four or five years that the acquisition section of the Land Commission would be withdrawn. It was obvious that there would have to be a replacement to help smaller farmers to acquire land. I introduced a new group purchase scheme and I will give some figures to outline progress. Under this scheme a number of farmers come together with the assistance of the Land Commission to purchase collectively land which individually they could not acquire. The Land Commission give advice and help with mapping etc. In the nine months to September 1983 39 such groups were formed and by September this year the figure had jumped to 118. Those 118 groups cover 3,353 acres of land. It is obvious that these figures will continue to climb and we will soon arrive at a position where there will be land division between small farmers with the aid of the Land Commission or similar body at very little cost to the Exchequer. The cost to the Exchequer may be as much as £400 or less. Obviously there are some warts in the scheme but we will endeavour to eradicate them.

I introduced an equivalent re-arrangement programme last year. In the first nine months of last year we had 16 applications and that figure has increased to 73 this year. Under this scheme a group of farmers whose holdings are scattered throughout a townland or parish go to the local Land Commission office for assistance in making their holdings more compact. The Land Commission give all the assistance necessary. This is happening in good farming areas and obviously there is a great increase in activity under the scheme.

The question of commonages is confined to marginal and poorer areas but it is of great importance to the people living there. During the past couple of years division had almost come to a halt. I let it be known that my temper would be very short with people who for selfish reasons were putting a stop to division. The message has got across that we are not prepared to take much notice of such people, some of whom may have been raising objections for the past quarter of a century. In the first nine months there were 20 applications and this year the figure is 123. There is great activity under the headings of the land policy as I introduced it in the latter part of 1983. This will continue and now we will add to it the land leasing prop which will make it easier for people to get into farming or extend their farms.

Many Deputies have said that there has not been any real transfer of land from father or mother to son or daughter. A few figures will give an idea of what has happened in the past two years. One of the best schemes was the stamp duty exemption which was introduced two years ago. It had the effect of coaxing the owner of land to transfer it to a son or daughter under certain conditions. I will not delay the House with all the conditions but basically the son or daughter had to be under 35 years of age and had to have an agricultural qualification. This resulted in the 100 hours EC course being held all over the country. Between 3,000 and 4,000 families have involved themselves in this scheme and I have not the slightest doubt that there are several sons and daughters who are now owners and managers of farms who would not have such control if it had not been for the introduction of this scheme during the past two years.

I believe the land leasing concept will become popular, and certain other small aids which I am considering might encourage people reaching pension age to get involved in the leasing system if it did not greatly upset their entitlement to old age pensions. We would then reach a stage where the transfer of land would be much more common. A total of 83 per cent of all land is transferred within the family. I have now found a framework whereby I can expedite that transfer and in future I am confident that we will see a greater degree of mobility within the family.

It is possible to say that a little bit of history has been created in that a new concept in Irish agriculture has been put through the House. Legislative effect has been given to many of the views which have been expressed. This Bill makes it clear to every landowner who becomes involved in leasing that he or she will get back that land at the end of the lease.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Mr. Connaughton

Next Wednesday, with the agreement of the Whips.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 14 November 1984.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 8 Nov 1984

Land Bill, 1984 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Nov 1984