Irish Land Commission (Dissolution) Bill, 1989: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time".

Mr. Nealon

I have never been a great subscriber to the value of putting things on the Official Record of the House, and this is no reflection on your House, A Cheann Comhairle, but the fact is that the Official Report is seldom read other than by people immediately concerned. That is a sad fact. However, as representative of the area of Sligo-Leitrim I have an obligation to put on record my recognition of the work of that body and some reflections and comments on it. I should also like to make some suggestions in regard to the future.

I come to this Bill with mixed feelings. On the one hand I am pleased that effect is being given to the decision of the previous Government to abolish the commission. On the other hand, like many other Deputies, I regret the passing of a part of our history. The Land Commission have been in existence for over 100 years and have played no small part in the life of the country. Indeed, as far as the west is concerned, they played a major part in the land structure of the entire area west of the Shannon.

It is quite a coincidence that the man mainly responsible for the commission being set up in the first place and in the dissolution should have the same name, Deasy. The former Deasy, whose work was responsible for setting up the Land Commission — or brought it on would be a more accurate term — was Attorney General to the Chief Secretary in the middle of the last century. He was responsible for the 1860 Act which laid down that the land of Ireland belonged exclusively to the landlords and that the tenants had no rights to it, apart from those granted by the landlords. When that Act was passed the tenants could be thrown out on a whim without notice or compensation. The reaction to that was naturally a very vigorous campaign for agrarian reform which led in 1881 to the setting up of the Land Commission.

The second Deasy involved was my colleague, Deputy Deasy, who presided over the Department of Agriculture — now the Department of Agriculture and Food — at the time of the decision to abolish the commission. Originally, the purpose of the Commission was to ensure that the tenant had certain basic rights such as the fixing of a fair rent. Later, however, the demand was for the abolition of landlordism, and every schoolchild is aware that it became part of our political history of the late 19th century. The campaign was successful. The process of buying out the landlords and making tenants the owners of their own farms began towards the end of that century. It was completed by the Land Act, 1923 which was piloted through this House by the distinguished first Minister for Agriculture of the new State, Mr. Paddy Hogan. By the time the Cumann na nGaedheal Government had left office in 1932 the wheel had turned full circle and after years of confiscation and eviction the land of Ireland was back again in native hands.

However, while the abolition of landlordism was a great victory it did little to remove the poverty of the small farmers, many of whom were concentrated in the west. Indeed, some of them lived in parts of County Tipperary, where the Ceann Comhairle comes from. They continued to live in very poor conditions and in many cases they merely subsisted. Many of the farms were small and fragmented. Their owners had no capital to do anything about their holdings and no equipment. Over the last 50 years or so the Land Commission have helped many of those smallholders. They had wide powers to compulsorily acquire land that was put up for sale or that was badly worked for distribution in turn to smallholders. The aim was to bring as many of them as possible up to a viable standard.

At one time the standard was 22 acres and, as we know now, that is too small a holding but at the time it represented a reasonable holding in the opinion of the authorities and of the farmers who worked them. Later the standard became 45 acres of good land. Inevitably, there was not enough land to go around and this led to the problem of selection. Any Member who has served in this House for a long period will be well aware of that problem. The criteria were, acreage already being farmed by the applicant, family circumstances, number in families, distance from the land being divided and farming ability. The Land Commission re-arranged holdings which were scattered and fragmented to make compact units. They built houses, out-offices, roads where necessary and laid on water.

I have vivid memories of the first such activity I saw in the townland of Cloongoonagh, next to my home townland of Coolrecull near Aclare in south Sligo, being divided up in that fashion. Excellent houses were provided. I met the people involved in that activity as I went to school. About the same time the "striping", which was the term used, of a very large field, known as Clarke's field, took place. My own football club, then known as the Aclare Football Club and now known as Tourlestrane, got its first football pitch through an extraordinary development. I do not know the full explanation for it. Apparently, the field had first to be handed over to the Church and the Church, in turn, were in a position to give it to the football team. The Land Commission, for what reason I do not know, were not entitled to hand it over to the football team. The field served us very well and was used by many famous footballers. Two weeks ago a new pitch was opened in that area and we had as guests a famous Kerry team. I am glad to be able to report that Sligo drew with Kerry on that occasion. I am not suggesting that Kerry were at their full strength. Indeed, it was a team that my colleague, Deputy Deenihan, might have figured on had he wished even though he has retired from inter-county football.

Coming as I do from that background, and from the west, I must make mention of the migration scheme. I accept that there were very few migrants from County Sligo and that most of them were from Galway and Mayo. However, migration was very much a feature of the work of the Land Commission. The scheme began in 1935 and it was a great social experiment under which small western farmers gave up their land at home and moved to new holdings in the east. The farms they gave up were used to enlarge the holdings of those who stayed behind. Successful though the scheme was it brought with it great sadness. No person likes to leave the place where he or she was born, where their parents and grandparents lived and where their friends are. No one likes to move to a strange place even if it is located within their own country. It is important to remember that we are talking about a different era, in the thirties and forties. The leaving was accompanied by great sorrow and it was traditional in the west that the night before such departures the neighbours would call to the house for what was similar to an "American wake". Although people were moving to the other side of the country it was, in the context of travel at that time and lack of communication, similar to one going into exile. I recall a young reporter working with The Irish Press in the mid-fifties — at that time it was a very good newspaper; although biased it had the best newsroom team in town — going to Westmeath or Meath to prepare a report on the last of the migrant families from the west settling in on their new holding.

The biggest migration was to County Meath and those who went were known as colonists. They got 24 acres of land, a house and a bank of turf. The Land Commission looked after them very well. Many people from the west are extremely grateful to them for their help. Contemporary accounts indicate that each migrant received three cows, two heifers, 12 sheep, one sow, two bonhams, 21 fowl, a horse and cart, a donkey and cart, harness, a plough, two harrows, a scuffler, a roller, ploughing tackle, a wheelbarrow, a turf barrow, dairy utensils and a share in a mowing machine and a potato sprayer. An indication of the change in times is the fact that many young people in County Meath have never seen some of those implements. Indeed, they would not be able to identify them.

The colonists were a great asset to their new areas and they brought with them a new culture, one that has survived to the enrichment of the areas they settled in. Their children have turned out extremely well and many of them subsequently became public figures. However, it should be said that the migrants from the west were not universally welcomed in their new homes and I should like to hear some Members from Meath comment on that.

However, I cannot detain the House too long with reminiscences of what was by any standards a great institution. At times we may have disagreed with the way they divided land; we had a different view from that of the inspectors. Deputies and Senators were intimately involved in such divisions and they did not always agree with the Commission. However, the Land Commission was a great institution and did a tremendous job. Before I leave the subject I should like to compliment another group, the Land Commission inspectorate, those who had to be Solomons in their judgment in the division of land. They had to divide land at a time when there was not sufficient land for all applicants. The question of selection always turned out to be a difficult one and those who dealt with that were the inspectors. While we may have had our difficulties with them and criticised them — on occasions we may have accused them of political bias — by and large the inspectors did a very good job.

I must also refer to the achievements of the Commission. The land settlement programme led to the division of 2.5 million acres among about 150,000 beneficiaries. That is the epitaph so far as the Land Commission are concerned. Farmers did not, of course, get this land free. The Land Commission paid for it in the first place and were repaid by "annuities", a word which needs no explanation to any Irishman. Indeed anyone of my age, or even considerably younger, who comes from the west of Ireland will remember annunities and demand notes being placed on the dresser to be paid at the appropriate time. Some of the annuities due on land purchased before 1922 led to the famous economic war with Britain in the thirties. The Irish Government of the day decided that enough was enough and refused payment of about £5 million per year to Britain for land bought before the Treaty.

Of course, we are not out of the woods yet. We still have need for a land policy. There are still a large number of holdings below an economic size and there are still very many people who want to get into farming. To help those with small farms to get a larger acreage I would support very strongly the views expressed by my colleague, Deputy Connaughton, when he was Minister of State. His idea was that small farmers wishing to purchase land coming on the market in their areas should be helped by the Minister's officials to come together as a group to purchase it. Some of these farmers might not have enough money to buy all the land and some of them — and it is important to remember this — might not be in a position to work all the land even if they got it. In that event they would be looking for a way to buy some of the land and the Minister's officials could act as a catalyst in this regard.

There is a particular kind of farmer affected by this problem. Generally speaking, he is a fairly young energetic farmer who has done a farming course of 100 hours or more but who does not have enough land and is not fortunate enough to have inherited a large amount of land or the capital with which to buy land. Those farmers are in a very difficult situation. What they need — and the Minister of State will have his own ideas about what form this should take — is some type of honest broker to act on their behalf. Even if neighbours and friends agree to come together to purchase a piece of land which they will subsequently divide, unfortunately, land generates more difficulties, more problems and more rows than anything else. We know that, it is part of our history. Farmers need some sort of outside body who will act as an honest broker and undertake that activity for them.

I see in this morning's Irish Independent that Dan McCarthy of the ICMSA Family Farm Development Committee has called this Land Bill foul and a fraud. The reason he advances for this is that there will be no authority to replace the Land Commission. Dan McCarthy, who operated an organisation of his own for many years, is a man I greatly respect because he is always logical in his approach and he goes straight to the point. I believe he is right that some sort of authority must be established to take over the functions of the Land Commission when they are dissolved. He also mentions the fact that two and a half years ago, when the present Taoiseach was Leader of the Opposition Party, he promised the ICMSA that accompanying the Bill to dissolve the Land Commission would be a Bill to establish a new land authority. That appears to have been a specific promise. If the Government fail to do that, it will not be the first promise they have failed to deliver on, but it was a very significant promise.

I am sure the Minister of State is very familiar with the problems being experienced by farmers in County Louth, although they do not have the same problems as the farmers in the west. He knows the problems being experienced by farmers in small holdings in Kilkerley and places like that and I am sure he appreciates very much the need for some sort of honest broker who will do the job for these young, energetic and enthusiastic farmers who are at present caught in a bind. In my constituency there are people who are anxious to come together but, as the Ceann Comhairle knows very well, it is very difficult to do that. Many people are very suspicious and if one man reveals his hand the other man will know what he is doing and the result is that what could have been a nice combination of small farmers who would buy out a neighbouring holding and divide it among themselves so that it would fit neatly into a good restructuring plan will not come together because there is no one to do that job. In addition to the work involved in the purchase of the land and bringing these people together, it would be equally important to have an honest broker involved in the division of the land so that he could decide what each person would get and the actual price each person in the group should pay. The Government should pay attention to what has been said in those areas.

Despite the compliments we have paid, we know a lot of work still has to be done in regard to restructuring. Those who have land on lease on a long term basis must be encouraged to come together to do the kind of thing I have been talking about. If we leave a vacuum in that area there will be major difficulties. In many parts of the country there are still holdings which are scattered and fragmented and the Minister must ensure that such holdings are rearranged in the interests of efficiency. It would be a great pity if, when the Land Commission are gone, we were to ignore matters such as those to which I have referred. Therefore, it is important that the Minister give his unremitting attention to them and ensure that a land policy is framed and implemented. I would welcome an indication from the Minister when he is replying of his intentions in this regard.

The history of the Land Commission is in turn part of the history, tradition and fabric of the west of Ireland and I want to pay a compliment to the men who are there now and their predecessors. It is only right to say that not only were the Land Commission a national institution but many of the inspectorate at local level would qualify to a certain extent as institutions in themselves. They did a very difficult job well and it would be a great shame if some body were not put in place to carry on from the Land Commission. We are not talking about acquiring land any more, that is all over, but we are asking for some body to be established so that if land becomes available small farmers can be grouped together to buy that land.

Something should also be done about the general overall fragmentation in many holdings. A good job has been done in regard to commonages and this is just as well because, as we know, many commonages were not producing to full capacity and when cattle were grazed on them disease could spread. With the emphasis finally being put on getting to grips with bovine tuberculosis it is essential that this kind of activity be eliminated altogether because it has no place in the future of Irish farming. That is the position.

I am glad that this Bill is going through the House. However, we need something extra. I have no doubt that the Minister of State when replying will give us some indication of Government thinking on this very important matter.

Mr. Deenihan

Representing a county such as Kerry, which has benefited considerably from Land Commission activities over the past 100 years, it gives me great pleasure to contribute to this debate. Throughout the history of this country land and the law pertaining to it have been at the very core of social and economic life to an extent rarely equalled in important elsewhere.

The concept of land itself is a complex one, varying in meaning from age to age, from country to country, from one society to another, indeed from one professional group to another. For example, to agricultural scientists land is the soil, the basic resource for the production of agricultural produce. To the economist it is a factor of production along with labour, capital and management, while planners and geographers view land as the earth's surface or simply a space. To the legal profession land is property, and property confers rights, privileges and obligations. Conservationists see land as part of the natural environment. From a sociological point of view land is a basis of wealth, social status or class, power, prestige and security. Taking a wider view, land is a concept loaded with sentiment and symbolism.

Our history has given the Irish farmer an exceptionally strong attachment to his land, reflected in a tendency to withhold its possession until the last moment rather than pass it on to his successors or retire. Of course, in this country for centuries land has been linked to emotions and aspirations for freedom, independence and social equality.

As a commodity land has certain special characteristics distinguishing it from any other commodity know to economics. It is the source of all other forms of material wealth beginning with foodstuffs. It is God-given, not man made, though it can be modified by the hand and work of man. It is perennial, not subject to the processes which destroy other resources. If well treated and rotated it will remain, and has remained, productive throughout time. It is limited in extent and this is as true with regard to any individual country as to the overall surface of the globe. Since land is an essential commodity to all people its very existence cannot be over-emphasised. Therefore there ought to be wider distribution of land and property rather than having it piled up in the hands of the few.

The proper usage of land stems from its self-evident importance. Agriculture is this country's basic industry, the main source of foreign exchange being our agricultural exports. Indeed, the country's economic wellbeing and future growth are allied to our ability to earn money abroad. Agriculture accounts for about half of our total exports while continuing to have a very low import content. A substantial proportion of the country's working population is employed either on the land or in industries and services allied to agriculture. Therefore it will be readily seen that the development of the potential of our land is crucial to our economic expansion and wellbeing. Current emphasis is on efficiency, productivity and profit. The desire to modernise has emanated from the farmer himself and from the pressures of a competitive market. This highlights the need to ensure that land is maintained in the hands of those best equipped to use it, thereby ensuring maximum benefit to the economy.

In Ireland the issues of land ownership and reform are almost synonymous with the Land Commission. For example, in the 108 years since its inception the Land Commission have reversed the cumulative effects of centuries of strife and violence by restoring to the Irish farmer the land and legal rights filched from him by a succession of penal enactments.

I had intended to sketch briefly here the role and impact of the various Land Acts comprising the land code. However, as this matter has been adequately dealt with by the Minister and Deputy Doyle, I shall refrain from doing so. However, the reform brought about by the Land Acts under the British regime by the Land Commission and the congested district boards was substantial. For example, over 316,000 holdings covering 11 million acres were purchased by or for tenants for a consideration of £100 million. In addition, 750,000 acres of untenanted land had been divided among 35,000 allotees, either by way of enlargement of uneconomic holdings or by the creation of new holdings. Since 1923 almost 110,000 tenants have had their holdings vested in them by the Land Commission for advances totalling almost £18 million. In addition, over 2.3 million acres of untenanted land has been distributed. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, including the Minister, the Land Commission were concerned also with the human problems pertaining to tenants and allotees, whose lot they strove to improve.

When engaging in research in preparation for this debate I came across the following extract from Business and Finance of a number of years ago which read:

Finally, it should be remembered that the Irish Land Commission since its earliest days has been dealing with problems which are not only of immense national importance but deeply human. Statistics on acreages acquired and moneys spent, endless legislation and mounds of paperwork can cloud over the fact that for the farmer battling against insurmountable odds to eke an existence from a few acres of rock in Donegal or Kerry, the Land Commission means a chance to begin a new life. It means an end to the uneven struggle against nature which has already probably killed his parents and forced his brother and sisters to emigrate, and an opportunity to return again in many cases to the region from which his forefathers were driven at the point of a sword. But it means a parting of neighbours and friends who have lived together for generations, who have helped each other through the bad times and who feel uneasy about the prospect of moving in among strangers.

The Land Commission has recognised this human problem also and has tried to ease it by migrating groups of neighbouring smallholders to new farms in the same locality. This group migration scheme has had the added advantage to do a better job for those who remain behind. In addition all acquired land is rehabilitated and fertilised before it is handed over to its new owners and holding for migrants are equipped with new houses and outoffices where necessary.

In the Land Commission, then, Ireland has a unique institution which has, during its 89 years' existence, reversed many of the wrongs perpetrated throughout seven centuries of turbulent history and inspired a body of agrarian legislation which is very much in line with modern thinking and could well prove to be ahead of its time in an EEC context. The role of the Commission has developed over the years from that of a rent-fixing tribunal to a major agency for the implementation of agrarian policy. As this policy develops, as it must under EEC conditions, the Commission is certain to have an increasingly important role to play in ensuring that the land of Ireland is divided equitably amongst our agricultural population and that it is used to produce for them, and for the nation, a wealthy harvest on which the future of this country must, to a very large extent, ultimately depend.

Indeed, many of the sentiments expressed in that article have been voiced by Deputy Nealon and several other contributors to this debate.

The Land Commission have been vested with extensive powers to acquire lands required for their statutory purposes. In granting those powers — now being revoked under the provisions of this Bill — the Legislature imposed strict limitations on them in order to safeguard owners' rights. Those limitations are carefully defined by statute and governed by rule. As a result, the legal process of acquiring land was a lengthy one which frequently tended to follow the line of most rather than least resistance.

Land acquired compulsorily was often non-residential or neglected and was not serving fully the national economy. In practice a substantial portion of the lands which came into the hands of the Land Commission was purchased on a voluntary basis. Full market value was paid to the owners.

Such a land policy as we have derives from the directive, Principles of Social Policy, as outlined in the Constitution, Article 45.2.v. which states that:

The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing ... That there may be established on the land in economic security as many families as in the circumstances shall be practicable.

Since 1939 that policy has as its primary objective the structural reform of uneconomic holdings throughout the State, with special emphasis on the relief of the acute congestion prevailing in western countries. To this end performance in recent years was aimed at an annual land re-settlement programme in the region of 30,000 acres. In addition to the distribution of land among sub-standard land holders and the creation of new life-size farms, it was the policy of the Land Commission to re-arrange into compact workable units holdings which are held in rundale, that is in scattered strips, frequently unfenced and without any proper means of communication between them.

To keep pace with the upsurge in living standards the Land Commission found it necessary to review from time to time the concept of what a viable farm unit should be, with the result that the area has progressively been increased down through the years from eight to ten hectares to the current level of 16 to 18 hectares of good land or the equivalent in land of mixed quality. The adoption of this standard in 1962 was designed to take into account the then current outlook and trends in family income and development in farming techniques. It was considered that a family farm should be capable not alone of affording a standard of living comparable with that available to those engaged in non-agricultural employment but also of maintaining the farm family in comfort under conditions of intensified competition in the future. Indeed, that was one of the hopes we had when entering the Common Market. That policy certainly looked to the future and what was going to happen.

Two milestones in the recent evolution of land policy were (1) the report of the interdepartmental committee on land reform issued in May 1978 and (2) the White Paper on land policy published in December 1980. As regards the report of the interdepartmental committee on land reform, I would like to list some of the most important findings and recommendations of the committee. Firstly, as long as a considerable proportion of the country's land resources remain under utilised and unproductive the agricultural industry cannot make its proper contribution to the development of the economy. This gives the clearest possible justification for directing new policies towards ensuring that all land is, as far as possible, productively and efficiently used in the future. Secondly, the inherent productive capacity of the land is not exploited to anything like its full potential with the available level of technology. Estimates of the country's grassland potential point to considerable discrepancies between the technical capacity and what is actually being achieved. Thirdly, whatever growth is being attained is coming from two thirds of our land. The problem of achieving agricultural development on the low producing farms will not be solved simply by improving farm product prices, increasing the level of investment or applying modern technology. All these are necessary, but they will evoke a response only from those farmers who are able and willing to combine good management with a basic amount of land. Fourthly, the land tenure system, characterised by a high incidence of owner occupancy, and thus a virtual absence of long term leasing, coupled with a tradition of late transfer of family holdings, does not provide the basis for a high degree of land mobility from one set of users to another. The land market is limited and the way it operates is not conducive to the emergence of a more favourable farm structure. Many farms are small and of poor quality.

The main proposals of the committee in dealing with those problems were: future land policy to be based predominantly on measures which would promote the efficient use of land for agricultural development and a new land agency to be established in place of the Land Commission to implement future land policy. This agency was to monitor sales of agricultural land, and vendors would have to notify the agency of proposed sales and advertise the sales in a prescribed manner. The agency would be empowered to operate a system of control in land market transactions and maintain a register of priority entitlement land applicants to whom the agency would endeavour to channel land becoming available on the market. No purchaser would be allowed to acquire agricultural land which would bring his total holding in excess of a certain level. There would be no limit on the amount of land acquired through a direct inheritance or intra farming transfers.

A number of other proposals were made which I will not list here. Overall it was a fairly detailed charter for dealing with the problems of land use and land mobility and obviously one to which considerable thought was given by the committee. It is fair to say that the report has more or less been ignored to date. Certainly, this Bill, which deals only with the dissolution of the Land Commission and does not deal with any new proposal on land policy, reflects that this report was not considered when this Bill was being drafted.

In the event what followed two years later was a White Paper. The policy outlined in that had two broad aims: firstly, to influence the land market in such a way as to make it possible for smaller, more progressive farmers to procure additional land; and, secondly, to promote the more efficient use of land so that agriculture could make the greatest possible contribution to the national economy. Indeed, as Deputy Stagg mentioned yesterday the measures proposed were radical and it was unfortunate that they were not taken on board. I will list some of these proposals. All purchases of agricultural land exceeding a certain level would require the consent of the Land Commission or the Land Authority. Purchases of agricultural land would attract a surcharge ranging from 15 per cent to 50 per cent of the purchase price in the case of farmers depending on the size of the final holding and 60 per cent in other cases. There would be no surcharge where farmer's final holding did not exceed a certain limit; a small holder whose existing holding did not exceed a certain level could qualify for a premium in respect of such additional land purchased as would bring his final holding up to a viable level. A new farmers' retirement scheme was to be prepared and earlier succession to be promoted, leasing to be encouraged and facilitated, commonage division to be stepped up, etc. It also proposed that local lists of suitable farmers be drawn up who would have priority access to land coming on the market.

When you consider both the inter-departmental committee report and also the White Paper on land policy and what has transpired over the past seven or eight years, I could say that both were ignored except for an effort by the former Minister of State, Deputy Connaughton, to introduce more attractive long term leasing. Nevertheless, one could safely say that the efforts of the inter-departmental committee and also what was proposed in the White Paper were futile and in vain.

In the light of all that has been written, studied and suggested as a means of improving land use and land structure, where do we go? We must ask ourselves the basic question; "Do we need a land policy and, if so, what form should it take?" We can adopt the stance that changing the land structure pattern is best left to the free play of the market, which seems to be the policy of the present Government. This means that a fat purse will be the sole criterion of eligibility to purchase. In other words, whoever has the cheque book will decide on who will buy the land. The likelihood in that event is that the bulk of land coming up for sale will be bought by wealthy large farmers. There has already been evidence that half of the open market land went to people who were not full time farmers. If, on the other hand, it is accepted that laissez faire is not the answer, then the question is: “What should the aims of the land policy be?” Is it to promote the more efficient use of the country's land resources while allowing for a reasonable distribution of ownership? Is this a sufficient aim? Land is not an asset for the benefit of whoever owns it — it has a social dimension.

What are the problems which an effective land policy should seek to put right? I have already mentioned some, but I will summarise them. Under-use of land is one, because many owners are not able or sufficiently interested to develop their holdings. There is a considerable number of holdings which are too small to be viable for those who are dependent for their livelihood on agriculture and who are using land efficiently. The rate of land mobility is slow due to the smallness of the land market, late retirements and reluctance to engage in long term leasing.

The direction of such land mobility as exists is towards people with other occupations, rather than smallholders and young qualified landless farmers. We must ask if this House adheres to the long standing acceptance throughout the community of the philosophy that not only do we need a strong agricultural industry but that the basic unit of production must be the family farm where a decent livelihood can be had under reasonable working conditions.

In County Kerry we have lost over 2,000 from the land in the past ten years. We are losing small farmers at an average rate of 300 every year. Over 60 per cent of suppliers to North Kerry Milk Products, one of our largest co-operatives, have over 12,000 gallons of a milk quota. If this policy, or lack of policy, continues, these farmers will be cleaned off the land in ten years' time. I give another statistic. Only 5 per cent of those supplying the Kerry co-operative have quotas of over 50,000 gallons. In an area like Kerry where there are so many smallholders there is a need for a policy, for State intervention. Whoever owns the cheque book will decide on who will get the land. What we will have will be a small number of large farmers and the whole country will be devoid of its very soul, the small farming community.

In the national plan the Government presented to Europe, various references were made to rural depopulation and to preserving the small farmer on the land. The reasoning behind the proposal to dissolve the Land Commission — various reasons were given in support of this and I know that it was proposed by my own party — was that something would be put in its place. Is it the intention of the Minister's party, as promised at the last election, that there will be a land authority to take its place? It is essential to ensure that the small farmer, especially in the west, will not remain an endangered species, as is the position at present.

Agriculture will remain our largest industry for the foreseeable future. When we speak of the farmer, and especially the family farmer, we are speaking of the worker in our largest industry. It is a harsh, unpalatable fact of life that there are still between 70,000 and 80,000 family holdings below the current standard of 40 to 45 adjusted acres. That acreage is threatened because of what has been happening recently on the land market. The fact that so many farmers subsist on uneconomic holdings and still can win a livelihood from the land is testimony to their industry and determination. In a recent article published in the Irish Times of 17 March last, Michael Dillon, on the occasion of the presentation of the Small Farm Development Awards, had this to say:

The progress of Irish farming was well demonstrated yesterday at the presentation of the Small Farm Development Awards. The standard of the winners of all the classes, and of many others who entered, was very high in any context, and provides a startling contrast with those in the first such competition about 30 years ago.

All of these people have shown that small enterprises can still be very successful, and that intelligence, determination and commitment to hard work can overcome most handicaps. Very many awards went to husband and wife teams.

The article dealt mostly with the enterprise of the small farmer and the potential that rests in that community. It bears out my point that the small farmer must be protected and given a chance.

The article continues:

The Minister for Food, Mr. Joe Walsh, who presented the awards, was particularly pleased with that sort of entry.

—meaning the small farmer and husband and wife team—

bringing an alternative enterprise on to the farm, at a time when expansion in traditional enterprises is being restricted.

At this juncture I turn to the Bill before us and must ask a very pertinent question. To what extent does it lay a basis for a national land policy which will eliminate, or at least lessen, the impact of the problems outlined? I see no reference in the explanatory memorandum to policy in relation to land use, to mobility or to structural reform. The tone is set in the first sentence which says that the purpose of the Bill is to dissolve the Land Commission, to revoke powers to acquire land under land purchase Acts, etc. I fail to see, in any of the provisions of the Bill, a mechanism of any kind for the development of a coherent land policy. Is land policy to be regarded as being of no significance in the future?

Under section 2, all powers conferred on the Land Commission by the Land Purchase Acts to acquire or purchase land are being abolished, except by way of exchange. Compulsory land acquisition has in the past been a difficult business, involving objections, court hearings, appeals and ultimately refusals, in many instances, to hand over possession. These powers were considerably curtailed by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions and judgments. These were the checks and balances that one finds in any democratic society. The rights of individual land owners were fully protected and the Land Commission had to prove their case for acquisition up to the hilt before they could acquire the land and then often only for very specific purposes such as relief of agricultural congestion in the locality.

These powers constituted one of the greatest array of weapons designed to provide the ultimate sanction against the neglect and misuse of land that should be put to better use. As far as I am aware no country in the European Community is equipped with such powers. Used wisely and discreetly, they are a great deterrent to indifferent land use. Now they are being wiped out. I feel that this may prove to be a big mistake. Could the Minister refer to this when replying to Second Stage debate? Why not let the Land Commission lie dormant on the Statute Books in case they need to be reintroduced at some future stage to counter abuses in the use and disposition of land, and stop undesirable accumulations which can leave real smallholders high and dry in their quest for additional land. The explanatory memorandum says "The intention is to revoke all powers to take over land (except of exchange) for land settlement purposes".

Both the report of the inter-departmental committee and the White Paper envisaged compulsory land acquistion as a last resort. Why is this concept being overthrown? I see that with the demise of compulsory acquisition the intention of Section 4 is that the balance of the Land Commission's functions will devolve on the Minister and he will be authorised to delegate to his officers such functions as he sees fit. I presume that these functions will include adjudicating on applications for purchase of land by non-qualified persons under section 45 of the Land Act of 1965. In this connection I must ask what are the criteria governing the method for dealing with these applications at present and what will they be under the new arrangements.

Deputy Doyle referred in her speech to the question of unqualified persons and said that this cateogry should be carefully defined in view of the fact that large companies are now coming into Ireland and buying up large stretches of land, be it for forestry or other purposes, or just to leave it lie dormant.

It is our duty as legislators to ensure the land of Ireland will not become again the preserve of the rich and the ranchers with the very existence of our smallholders threatened. At present member nationals of the EC exercising the right of establishment can buy as much land here as they like without reference to the Land Commission. All they have to do is put a certificate in the deed of transfer to the effect that they are exercising the right of establishment. No records are available to show the extent of these transactions. We have no figures to show how much of the land of Ireland is passing from native to other hands. Again I would like the Minister to refer to this in his reply. It will be interesting to know these figures.

It may be argued that it makes no difference how many EC nationals are buying Irish land since they are entitled to do so. It is here the relevance of the land commissioners' compulsory powers is seen. These powers can be used to discourage undesirable accumulation of land, provided they are exercised in a non-discriminatory manner and used in an evenhanded way to discourage Irish speculators as well as non-Irish speculators. Leaving aside EC nationals, what about all the others who can now buy as much land as they like if they have enough money, regardless of whether they need that land? Will they continue to have a free hand? This House and expecially the Minister must address these problems.

Section 8 of the Bill deals with what has always been a difficult and controversial aspect of Land Commission work, that is, land division, getting rid of the land that will still be undivided when the Land Commission are dissolved. The Minister will now take over that job which has always been left to the independent and impartial discretion of the commissioners. Notices will be published in the paper alerting interested applicants that the lands are to be sold. How many applicants will see a notice in Irish Oifigiúil or in at least one newspaper published and ciruclating in the county in which the land is situated? Is there any real substitute for the detailed and solid local inspection and inquiries that take place at present where every smallholder living within a mile of the land is automatically considered and interviewed?

My experience of land division is that, while the choice of successful allottees might not always have been my choice, I still could not find fault with the thorough, painstaking efforts of the local inspectors who made such a detailed assessment of each applicant. Deputy Nealon referred to political interference and so forth by Ministers and, no doubt, because the Minister's party were in power for such a long time, land divisions were sometimes associated with being a member of the local cumann or whatever, but I would not blame the local officers in most cases. They only submitted their proposals. One of the reasons for the dissolution of this body was political interference; but whether that is true I do not know. Certainly, where I saw land distributed I thought it was done fairly in most cases.

Deputy Nealon referred to land annuities. It seems as if many people around the country who got land from the Land Commission are now seriously in arrears with payments of their half yearly instalments. I see no reference in the Bill to the possibility of enabling these annuities to be reduced or arrears written off. Under the new dispensation, that is when the Land Commission are gone, who will deal with these thorny issues of reducing or mitigating the effects of high annuities? For example, who is going to take responsibility now for these annuities? Now that land bonds are being abolished, according to recent announcements in the papers, would this not be a suitable opportunity to take a new look at the whole question of land annuities and see whether there is a case to be made for encouraging people to pay off the annuities on favourable terms? A scheme operated last year for house purchase where a number of local authority tenants purchased their houses. I suggest that the Minister of State present discuss with his Minister the possibility that people who have land and are paying annuities be given the chance of buying their land and buying out their annuities.

Another point I would like to mention is the question of rearranging intermixed holdings and dividing commonages. While these are very laudable and necessary operations, they are nevertheless marginal to the mainstream purpose of improving land use, structures and mobility. With the disappearance of compulsory powers to intervene in these activities, there will be no adequate measures for dealing with unco-operative and difficult tenants and commage shareholders. How will the Minister address this problem with the disappearance of these powers? How will he acquire this land compulsorily? What measures can be taken?

When the Land Commission have been consigned to the scrapheap of history we will have no body or agency to intervene on behalf of the many deserving small farmers and qualified young landless applicants who so desperately need land to make their livelihood. Deputy Nealon referred to an article in today's Irish Independent in which Dan McCarthy of the ICMSA Family Farm Development Committee referred to this Bill. I quote from page 8:

The Minister for Agriculture, Michael O'Kennedy, is now presiding over the sale of land to "unqualified persons" at the rate of 3,500 acres per month, ...

This is staggering, really frightening—

This is happening at the same time as hundreds of well-qualified young agricultural people are forced to emigrate for the want of land, the chairman of the ICSMA Family Farm Development Committee, Dan McCarthy said.

"Foul and fraud" is the description given by Mr. McCarthy to the Bill now before the Dáil to dissolve the Land Commission.

Mr. McCarthy said the Bill was foul because it will permanently damage the viability prospects of thousands of very good small farmers. It is a fraud he said because the Taoiseach scarcely two and a half years ago when he led the Opposition, promised the ICSMA that accompanying the Bill to dissolve the Land Commission would be a Bill to establish a new Land Authority.

"The Minister for Agriculture is now presiding over the sale of land to unqualified persons at the rate of 3,500 acres per month" he said.

"This cannot be defended, particularly at a time when hundreds of well qualified young persons with either Green Certificates, or one year's training at an agricultural college, or on completion of the three year Farm Apprenticeship Scheme, are forced to emigrate, for the want of land.

This bears out the point I am making. What kind of mechanism does this House consider should be brought into play to enable these deserving and enterprising applicants to gain access to the land they are more than willing to work to its full potential if they can obtain it?

When I was researching for this speech I came across a quotation from the Most Reverend Doctor Philbin, Bishop of Clonfert, away back in 1959, writing on rural problems and I will quote an extract from it:

In Ireland we should not allow ourselves to become pessimistic to the point of passivity about what is happening. We have advantages and assets which we ought to cultivate in order to balance the difficulties we must contend with. The chief reason why I am confident that we can maintain a wide distribution of land ownership is the attachment of so many of our young men to the land and their desire to become farmers, even in a small way.

This may seem an extremely controvertible statement in view of the extent to which young people are deserting the countryside. Yet, to anyone who examines the picture carefully at close quarters, the most significant fact is not the numbers that are leaving the land but the extent to which the love of farming and the desire to become farmers are rooted in the bulk of our rural population. This attachment to the land is surely our greatest single economic asset. It behoves us to give every encouragement and satisfaction to it to see that it secures the recompense without which it cannot survive and to neutralise, as far as we can, the influences that are countering it. I am convinced that if we build upon this foundation, we can go a long way towards minimising the evil effects of emigration and rural depopulation, even though we shall probably always have to accept a certain measure of these.

This was back in 1959. Would these stirring words be easily translated to 1989? Dan McCarthy is echoing the same sentiments today in the Irish Independent.

There are many other points I should like to develop on this theme of attachment to the land and facilitating easy access, but I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House. I will refer briefly to some other matters which should have been dealt with in this Bill. Long term leasing of land is one example. Should we not think in terms of incentives to encourage a general change of attitude to this form of land holding, the advantages of which are manifold? It is accepted that in addition to actual transfer, leasing could be an answer to the problem of getting land into the hands of younger and more enterprising farmers. However, it is a practice which at present has hardly any place in our land tenure system and there is no easy way to ensure immediate and widespread acceptance of it. The short-term letting of land on the 11-month system is common, with very often the same land being taken by the same person for several years in succession. It would seem to be a short step from that to a system of leasing for an extended period of five to six years, for example. Yet this does not happen. The Land Bill introduced by the then Minister of State, Deputy Paul Connaughton, tried to do just that but there is no evidence that it has succeeded on the ground. I appeal to the Minister to try to make long-term leasing more attractive to farmers. There is a fear regarding land ownership and so forth but if the farmer feels he is protected by law and is given the right incentives I believe he will be prepared to lease his land on a long term basis. That attitude does not prevail at present among the vast majority of farmers. They are afraid to lease their land for more than 11 months in case by some means they could lose it.

Another aspect of land ownership which worries me is the relatively slow rate of transfer or mobility. Deputy Connaughton, speaking some time ago, said that the great bulk of land passing from one management to another is by way of inheritance or gift from one parent to son or daughter. The Deputy went on to say that late inheritance in Irish farming has been a much debated problem for generations and that the tradition that the Irish farmer remains active in farming and in control of the land right up to his death means that the heir to his farm is denied control during his most enterprising and ambitious years. Deputy Connaughton concluded that this obviously has an adverse effect on agricultural development, especially in the present day and age when we need the initiative and enthusiasm of younger farmers to cope with the demands of modern farming technology.

The young farmer establishment aid scheme was an incentive to farmers to hand on farms to their sons. It has been reasonably successful but unfortunately a farmer must have one labour unit to qualify. The people with one labour unit are generally the bigger farmers. The problem remains at the level of the smaller farmers who do not have one labour unit and therefore do not qualify. The Minister might indicate whether it is the intention to change the qualifying requirement for young farmer establishment aid. An EC directive stipulated one labour unit but that prohibits a large number of young farmers from applying.

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

This is a bit removed from the dissolution of the Land Commission.

Mr. Deenihan

It has all to do with the transfer of land and relates to what I am saying. I agree with the remarks made by Deputy Connaughton. We must still think about ways and means of ensuring earlier transfer or at least shared management of the family farm by younger men and women. In other countries there is a system of formal arrangements and contracts between farmers and their heirs, dealing with work, management and income sharing. A worthwhile farmers' retirement scheme could prove a very useful mechanism. This is a topic dear to my heart since I come from Kerry where the Land Commission had such a profound effect. During my speech I have raised many issues concerning land ownership and use. There are no easy answers. Nevertheless this Bill presents the House with a long-awaited opportunity to examine these problems in depth and try to come up with some solutions. We cannot gloss over the problems. They are there to be faced by us, acknowledged and dealt with. Do we deal with them now or pass them on to another generation? That is the point at issue. Dissolving the Land Commission will not solve the problems of young farmers with regard to land transfer.

We must demand a more imaginative response from the Government. Their intention as outlined in the policy document sent to Europe is to preserve the rural population. However, this is a step in the direction of causing further rural de-population. The Minister should consider new measures to ensure earlier land release and better land distribution to preserve the very fabric of rural Irish society, the smaller farmer.

Mr. M. Brennan

In speaking on this Bill one wonders whether we should welcome it or not. I have listened to the previous speaker and it is a pity he was not in the House when such a Bill was first proposed in 1984.

Mr. Deenihan

It was proposed then to set up a land authority, but it did not happen.

Mr. M. Brennan

It is a pity the Deputy was not here then because I admire much of what he has just said. The Land Commission have served this country well and given many farmers additional land, particularly smaller land owners and congested farmers. Agriculture is our greatest industry and hopefully will remain so for many years to come. I come from a rural area and know what the Land Commission have done in rural Ireland, particularly in the west, and the number of small land owners who have been enabled to make a viable living due to the land they got from the Land Commission some years ago.

The Land Commission made mistakes in the way they divided land. I want to strongly object to the way some land was divided quite recently. A small farm was divided and a farmer who had land surrounding this farm was not considered for an allocation. Yet we talk about fragmented farms, about TB and brucellosis spreading, and the amount of money it is costing the taxpayer. The division of this land has not yet gone through the Land Registry and it may not be too late for the Minister to do something. I appeal to the Minister to take another look at this case and consider giving this farmer those few acres of land.

The Land Commission are making huge profits from land given to farmers at the moment because of the cost of the annuities. I would support my colleague, Deputy Micheal Kitt, in his proposal that the Minister should make a once off sale of land to farmers who are in some difficulty with repayments. We introduced tenant house purchase last year. Let us do the same with land this year. Perhaps this could be done by way of amendment since there are large numbers of farmers, particularly those with vested land, who are unable to make the repayments because the land was so expensive when they got it and their headage payments are being stopped at the moment to meet the repayments. I am asking the Minister to take that into consideration, to include that in the Bill so that these farmers will no longer be penalised through losing headage grants and so on in order to meet these repayments.

Some time ago the Land Commission when dividing land would not allocate any to a farmer who was working, and many small farmers have to work to subsidise their income from farming. These farmers were not considered when a farm came up for division because they had alternative income, whether from part time or full time employment, and it must be accepted that there is no such thing as full time employment in factories these days.

I was never too happy with the land bonds. The Minister should wind up the land bonds and introduce a more suitable alternative. I hope something will be done about it in this Bill so that the land bonds will disappear forever.

The flight from the land, particularly from the farms in the west, has been mentioned. Thousands of small farms have closed up and have been bought by adjoining farmers. I welcome the group purchase scheme being introduced in this Bill whereby a group of small farmers can get together to purcahse a farm of land. It is suggested that we might have absentee landlordism if the Minister implements this proposal but I do not believe this will happen.

The small family farm is the most important thing in Ireland today. We see too much of factory farming all over Europe. The present Commissioner, Mr. Ray MacSharry, with responsibility for rural development, has an interest in small family farms. I hope he succeeds in what he is setting out to do in Europe, that is, restore the small family farm. We want to see this happen. We want to see the farmer with the small milk quota of 3,000 to 6,000 gallons being given an extra milk quota to enable him to make a living, because the only people who are making money from the land are those involved in milk production. An increase in the milk quota would be of great benefit to our young farmers. We should be encouraging those young farmers who have done their hours in agricultural college and qualified for installation aid. If we want rural Ireland to prosper, if we want people to stay in rural Ireland, we must look after the family farm.

In general I am happy with the Bill, although I am concerned about a few things in it. Again, my main purpose in speaking on this Bill today was to ask the Minister to make a once off land sale to the farmers who are in trouble with annuity payments and whose headage grants are being stopped at the moment because they are unable to make their repayments.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 4 May 1989

Irish Land Commission (Dissolution) Bill, 1989: Second Stage (Resumed).

Acting Chairman

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 May 1989