Deputy Leonard was in possession.
Land Bond Bill, 1991: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I had been saying very few people would regret the abolition of land bonds. Many had had land acquired against their wishes, paid for by land bonds which were of only limited benefit to them, because for years the redemption of those bonds was dependent on one's luck in the lottery.
Over the years the Land Commission undertook great work when many uneconomic holdings were rendered viable. Nonetheless with the changes from traditional areas of production such farms are not viable. At one time the Land Commission aimed at 45 acres but that size holding is no longer viable.
With the decision to wind down the Land Commission leading to its ultimate abolition it would be opportune for the Department to ascertain into whose hands that land had been delivered because it would appear now that the aim is to have large farms, herds, machines and co-operatives. Efficiency is suffering because of the complete emphasis on size. It is not the amount of land a farmer has that counts but the value he makes of it. There are some very economic smallholdings.
The Land Commission did valuable work and I could indicate a farmer in my own area whose original holding was not viable but who received an allocation from the Land Commission of which he made very good use. At no time in the Connacht-Ulster region will there ever be sufficient land to meet the demand. It is the ambition of all small farmers to be big farmers and it is the ambition of landless young farmers to become owners of land. There are many well trained and ambitious young farmers who are unable to put their skills to good use because they have no land.
The question of afforestation must be examined very closely. The Department are hell bent on it. There is serious resentment among people in the areas involved. In County Monaghan there has been very little afforestation, even, I regret to say, in areas of marginal land, but people in areas such as west Cavan and Leitrim resent the purchase by groups and wealthy individuals of land suitable for afforestation purposes.
Many speakers have referred to arrears of land annuities, a matter of concern to most elected representatives. We welcome the Minister's announcement of the setting up of a working party in his Department to examine the question of land annuities and to report back before the end of the year. He had received representations from farmer organisations and others to do something about the arrears. Annuities were high in the seventies and eighties when land prices and interest rates were high. There were also high expectations in regard to food prices in the EC. The high prices did materialise but they were not maintained. The banks were vying with each other to make money available for land purchase and were almost giving incentives to people to purchase.
I welcome the Minister's statement that a case by case approach to those people with arrears is no longer effective and that a national approach would be more effective. If a man is in arrears, the problem steadily gets worse and kills off any incentive to come to terms with it. The arrears then reach uncontrollable levels. The Minister has said he is looking for a comprehensive and fair solution. I hope this matter will progress speedily and that those people who are in difficulties with arrears will have their burden reduced in order to enable them to continue in farming.
The Minister said at the outset that this is a purely technical Bill and a logical follow-up to the decision to cease the compulsory acquisition of land and to abolish the Land Commission. Under the law, lands compulsorily acquired had to be paid for in land bonds but with the demise of compulsory acquisition such bonds are no longer needed.
In various debates over the past 20 years in this House, Deputies have voiced their opposition to this unfair system of land acquisition. Usually in the end the seller of the land lost out. On 22 July, 1969 Deputy Mark Clinton stated:
Say a man who gets £10,000 for a farm owes the Bank of Ireland £10,000. Will the Bank of Ireland accept £10,000 worth of bonds in respect of this debt? The answer clearly is that they will not. Therefore, we are pretending to be paying a price for land that, in fact, we are not paying.
Speaking the following day on the same Bill Deputy L'Estrange stated:
The present system of paying in land bonds is unfair and unjust. It delays, hinders and frustrates the acquisition of land. At the present time nobody seems to have confidence in land bonds.
Later that year on 23 October the late Deputy Oliver Flanagan, referring to the then Minister, Deputy Sean Flanagan, stated:
The Minister is aware that, from the point of view of many landowners, the land bonds system is most unsatisfactory.
Several other speakers referred to the matter. Deputy Kenny will cite his late father's reservations about the bond system.
Deputy Deenihan's research is very good.
I am glad this system is being dispensed with. From contact with people who were paid through this system, I realise it was most unfair. They felt they did not benefit to the extent they should. The Department of Agriculture and Food claim that at present more than 10,000 farmers owe approximately £4.7 million in arrears on land annuities and more than 1,000 farmers owe £500 or more. The IFA recently stated that the problem is more serious with approximately £6 million owed in arrears and approximately 2,000 farmers experiencing major difficulties with repayments. It is true to say — Deputy Connaughton referred to this earlier — that a number of headage grants and premia payments have been attached by the Department of Agriculture and Food. I am aware of some such cases. It is most unfair to extract annuities from farmers who are experiencing extreme hardship due to the decline in agricultural incomes. Deputy Connaughton said the Department were acting unconstitutionally. I do not know whether they are but they are certainly acting in a very unfair and penal fashion by attaching payments without the knowledge and certainly without the consent of many farmers.
It is very important that the working party set up by the Minister to examine the problems in regard to annuities and to propose solutions should report as soon as possible and put forward proper solutions. Reference was made here this morning to various solutions, including low interest loans and Euro loans. Nevertheless, the system should be properly examined. The problem really arose during the seventies when land was sold at high, inflated prices. It is mainly the farmers who acquired land during the late seventies who are experiencing difficulties at present. I think repayments of £180 per acre were mentioned here today. This is far in excess of the economic rent one would get from land at present. As I said, the fall in incomes as a result of the decline in milk and beef prices has meant that farmers cannot afford to pay these unfair, excessive annuities. I appeal to the Minister and his officials to face up to the problem as soon as possible. During the past month farmers from all over the country visited the Dáil to lobby various TDs on this very question. It is important that something is done about this problem as a matter of extreme urgency.
Reference was made to the setting up of a land authority and the absence of a land policy. In my contribution on the Irish Land Commission (Dissolution) Act, 1989, I referred to the problems in regard to land annuities and the need for a land policy and a land authority. Unfortunately, very little has happened since then. We should be planning at least ten years ahead in the area of agriculture. The Government should bring together the main players in the area of agriculture, including the IFA, the ICMSA, Teagasc, the Department of Agriculture and Food and all those who have an interest in farming, to work out a plan over the next ten years. At a time of changing patterns in Europe and a reduction in the price support systems, we need a proper plan for farming. We are going into the Maastricht Summit with no farming policy whatsoever.
We are coming out of it.
Absolutely, but we are going into it with no real negotiating position and we will suffer as a result. Following Maastricht, the Government have to set out clearly where they stand in regard to the demise of small farmers, an issue which was referred to here this morning. We have to plan ahead. If it is our objective to keep farmers on the land then we have to provide them with the necessary supports. The Government seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to the various crises which arise mostly in Europe and seem to have very little policy or direction of their own.
I welcome the opportunity to add my voice to this debate. Many speakers have said that this is the beginning of the end of the Land Commission as we knew it. In this Bill the Minister of State and his senior Minister deal with a very small number of issues of concern to farmers. I understand that the rent accruing for the year ended 31 December 1991 amounted to £4.9 million and that the arrears for that year amounted to £5.4 million. The Land Commission collected approximately £4.4 million in annuities, which leaves approximately £5.9 million in outstanding arrears at present. Obviously this is a matter of serious concern to the great number of farmers who demonstrated outside this House because of the high price they paid for land and the consequent reduction in prices since.
Deputy Deasy referred to the fundamental need for the Minister and his Department to not alone deal with this issue but to put in place a central land authority. The Land Commission, as they were known in rural Ireland, were the bane of a great number of small farmers. The Land Commission man as he was known gained respect and notoriety and caused divisions in some townlands which lasted for several generations. It is known in the West that former Ministers for Lands who divided estates in the ashes of country houses would scrub out the ash map and redraw it if the local Cuman Secretary discovered he had not got the field he wished. I suppose it is appropriate that we should be debating this Bill at a time when there is a very large "For Sale" sign on the Land Commission building accross the road.
Rekindle the embers.
All good things come to an end. Annuities are not being paid because, on the one hand, farmers find it difficult to make ends meet while, on the other and more importantly, there is a perception among the public that the Land Commission are fast coming to an end and this problem will go away. This problem will not go away. The Minister set up a working group about two months ago to examine the problems being experienced by farmers in repaying land annuities.
It may be in the Minister's interest to introduce something akin to the local authorities scheme. That scheme was introduced when local authorites had a great number of houses on their hands, an increasing repair bill each year and no money to meet it. From their point of view if one owned the property one had more respect for it than if one was paying rent to some mysterious local authority who might or might not be in a position to carry out repairs. I hope the working party, comprising some very capable people, will be in a position to put recommendations before the Minister at a reasonably early date as to how a solution can be achieved for those worst affected.
The Minister presides over the Land Commission where there are approximately 100 staff employed. In the records office of the Land Commission there are three or four staff. This means that those who worked there for a long number of years have been transferred to other Departments and no file can now be retrieved or, a least, only with great difficulty in respect of any estate in the country. If the Minister of State demands a file relevant to a Land Commission holding in County Louth it might be interesting to see how fast it can be produced. There are three Commissioners in the Land Commission and a very small number of staff in the Records office. The question has to be asked, what are they doing? The Land Commission still have in their possession a great deal of commonage holding. The Minister will be aware that farmers and shareholders who are in a majority in terms of wanting these commonages divided have been unable to do so. A case in my county of Mayo was taken to the High Court. In that case a majority of shareholders wished to have the commonage divided and a minority did not. That case was dealt with more than 12 months ago in the High Court by Miss Justice Carroll and judgment was reserved. There has not been a decision since. The staff of the Land Commission might have a great deal of work to do depending on that decision. It is past the time for a decision in that case to be handed down; the people should know where they stand. It appears that the view is that the Land Commission are on the way out and that this problem will disappear too but it will not. While we cannot interfere with the courts — and we have no wish to do so — it might be no harm to say we would all wish that the reserved judgment be handed down.
While the Land Commission down the years were never perfect, their restructuring and rearrangement of holdings allowed small farmers and those who had a wish to develop to become more efficient and earn a bigger income from the land. During that period there was at least a sound rural structure in place. We are now witnessing the modern turn of the wheel. An examination of the register of electors in any western county will show a significant increase in the number of EC nationals and others who are now in possession of various properties. We have no wish to dispute that.
With the central role of the acquisition of land removed from the Land Commission the paper restrictions still in place are a nonsense. There are restrictions in place for people outside the EC, US citizens and others; but EC nationals have the right to purchase land here. Deputy Deasy's call for a land authority needs to be examined seriously because the change in rural Ireland over the past ten or 15 years has been astounding. Business people, those involved in various commercial activities or others have the opportunity to acquire — and are acquiring — huge tracts of land for forestry development and so on. Smurfit resources, to name but one, are in a position to acquire whole townlands and where the sound of voices rang out for hundreds of years there is nothing left but the bird call and acres of pine trees. The Minister is presiding over a very serious change in many parts of rural Ireland. He should ensure that some semblance of an authority is set up in his Department to oversee the distribution of a very valuable natural resource.
An ecological desert.
I thank my colleague from the south-east for his assistance.
Will the Deputy take some assistance from the Chair and refer to the Bill before us rather than the deserted village.
As I usually say to you, Sir, when you are in the Chair——
The guarantee fund and the land bond fund are no longer required under the Bill.
——your forefathers came from a place which is very much under siege in this regard. I know the Leas-Cheann Comhairle would like me to put that on the record on his behalf because he may not be able to say it from the Chair.
The Deputy's indulgence in the genealogical pursuits of the Chair has been heard several times before and is well established; it is unnecessary for him to repeat it.
I expect the working party on annuity arrears will have a report before the Minister soon, and I urge him to implement its recommendations. The people who are genuine in trying to do their best on the land are experiencing severe difficulties in meeting their repayments. One of the reasons these annuities are not being paid and why there are arrears of £5.4 million is because of the assumption that the Land Commission are being phased out and that the problems will disappear with them. The Land Commission were part of the social fabric of rural life for many years. In terms of the changes now taking place on the land the Minister should seriously consider making a name for himself by being the person to introduce a new land agency. The Minister has at best only 12 to 15 months to do so. He should introduce an overseeing agency who would have a supervisory role in the manner in which our land is distributed. If he does he will be doing a good job for future generations It is much more serious than dealing with the technicalities in the Bill. While they are important and of great concern to many farmers, the Minister has an opportunity to do something more fundamental and lasting for his Department and the country.
I am glad of the opportunity to address a few points on this Bill. As the Minister said, it is largely a technical Bill with some practical consequences for farmers. In his address the Minister did not advert to when he hopes to introduce the Land Commission (Dissolution) Bill. I hope it will be introduced as quickly as possible and that in his reply the Minister will be able to give a date on which he will attempt to steer that long awaited legislation through the House.
The great hardship being caused throughout rural Ireland by land annuities has no doubt been brought to the attention of the Minister. In my constituency there is widespread concern about the amount of arrears that are due and the difficulties being experienced by farmers in meeting these repayments. It is a pity that while speaking on the land bonds the Minister did not provide the House with some information as to what he proposes to do with the annuities, and the inability of farmers to meet these repayments. Deputy Deasy and other speakers drew the Minister's attention to the need to restructure payments because of our present economic climate.
The Land Commission was originally established to create viable economic holding throughout the country. Repayments need to be restructured now because of the hardship being caused. Instead of creating economic holdings, in effect what is happening in the nineties is that many of the small holdings are becoming uneconomic and that is exactly opposite to what was envisaged by the original legislation. A revised purchase scheme akin to the tenant purchase scheme introduced by the Department of the Environment in 1988 is what is needed. I refer the Minister to Circular HRT2 of 26 February 1988 which outlined what was a very fine scheme to allow local authority tenants engage in the purchase of local authority houses. Such a scheme with a convertible payable option is something the Minister must seriously look at under this legislation and in anticipation of the legislation we expect early in the New Year. The main feature of such a scheme should be that it would refer directly to the condition of the land.
Because of the hardship in meeting repayments, individual holdings have suffered because the farmer has not had sufficient funds to improve his lot. The condition of the land must be paramount in whatever restructuring device the Minister introduces, along with an element of arbitration and a valuation certificate, with perhaps a role for the Valuation Office in determining the period of payment with a substantial discount. The discount in the tenant purchase scheme was of the order of 40 per cent. If there was a similar discount for the redemption of the land purchase annuities, not only would the Government be engaging in a social act of some considerable benefit to farmers but they would be able to raise some money on the sale of the land at a fixed interest rate, particularly in dealing with elderly farmers in small holdings who cannot meet the current system of repayments. Without a restructuring procedure we will have continuing hardship. Over £5 million is now outstanding in these half yearly instalments of repayments. I implore the Minister to give some direction as to what line this will take in the future. A sum of £5 million now means a substantially greater amount by next May. I ask the Minister to look at what the Department of the Environment did in the matter of local authority houses and introduce a similar scheme for the land held under the annuities system.
Section 12 of the Land Act, 1965 will become meaningless with the dissolution of the Land Commission. I know it has been some time since this section was used. Will the Minister proceed by way of repealing that section? I was disappointed this was not mentioned under the miscellaneous provisions of the Bill. Undoubtedly the consent of the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Land Commission to each subdivision of holdings on the basis that smaller holdings would be uneconomic has outlived its usefulness in practical terms. Perhaps the Minister could give us the number of applications for section 12 consent that have been refused over the past number of years? I have rarely come across it. Perhaps in almost 95 per cent of cases this is merely a rubber-stamping process by the Land Commission and the Department. We should get clarification on this. The creation of economic holding was the hallmark of Land Commission practice and yet it is something that in practice has gone by the board over the last number of years. What is the Minister's policy on that? Deputy Deasy referred to the need for a land authority of some substance and that is very important. I know it is for another day but I would like the Minister to address his attention to that issue.
I would impress on the Minister the widespread hardship being caused by land annuities particularly in midland counties where farm incomes are in crisis and where meeting these twice yearly repayments to the Land Commission is no longer a feasible option. What is good for local authority tenants should be equally good for the elderly small bachelor farmer who in many cases is almost on the side of the road due to economic hardship. These Land Commission payments do not reflect the value of the land on a yearly basis to the person involved. The sooner the Minister introduces a reasonable scheme along the lines of the tenant purchase scheme, the sooner we will see an alleviation of this hardship that is stalking the land.
I, too, welcome this Bill. Like many other Deputies I have had numerous representations made to me by farmers regarding land annuity arrears. It has already been said, but it needs to be emphasised on every occasion, that farmers are indeed experiencing great difficulty at the moment because of the decline in milk and beef prices, to name but two areas. Any measure that would alleviate the difficulties farmers are facing, particularly in the west, would be very welcome indeed.
The Land Commission have at all times been very understanding in their treatment of farmers who genuinely wish to try to deal with this problem but it is a problem which has become insurmountable for many farmers. Therefore I welcome this Bill with particular reference to section 7 which refers to the power to waive the payment of certain annuities. This is something the Minister should be commended for and that every Member of this House should support.
I also want to commend the Minister for being prepared to set up the working party, and I look forward to seeing the outcome of their deliberations.
I know the question of setting up a land authority is not exactly within the ambit of this Bill but it is perhaps permissible on Second Stage to mention areas that do not come strictly under the Bill at issue. I would, therefore, like to take this opportunity to say that I believe the Government should have a look at the question of setting up a land authority particularly in the light of the very different farming scenario nowadays with the proposed changes in the Common Agricultural Policy and what that will mean to the poorer farmers particularly in the west. I look forward to movement on the issue of the land annuity.
With specific reference to this Bill, I would like to be on record as supporting the Bill and to once again thank the Minister for wishing to attempt to alleviate some of the very real problems particularly of smaller farmers in constituencies such as mine in County Clare.
A number of people have dealt with the land annuities which are owing to the Land Commission and the Department of Agriculture. I, like many Deputies in this House, have had representations made to me in regard to this, and the £5.4 million which is still owed is a lot of money.
This Bill is a technical piece of legislation but basically it is the first step towards the dissolution of the Land Commission. There should, therefore, be some discussion on the question of a land authority.
With the diminished role of the Land Commission, many farmers wonder what is the point of paying land annuities to a system that is no longer working, to a commission who are not allowed purchase any more land. This is one of the main reasons the problem of debt has arisen. Another problem has been the massive fall off in farm incomes over the last number of years. Anybody who represents a rural constituency is aware of the difficulties facing farmers in just trying to survive. To give an example, a mountain sheep farmer in my constituency sold a 40 foot container of wool for £14,000 four years ago and last week sold a similar container of wool for £4,000. That is an example of the massive fall off in farm incomes and is a factor in the non payment of land annuities by farmers.
The Land Commission may not have been perfect but they did much valuable work. I am sure that many Members of this House who have been here over the last 20 years and have had many representations made to them regarding the division of land may not be sorry to see a diminished role for the Land Commission because it certainly caused some political controversies within rural areas. It was set up so that small farmers could increase their holdings at modest cost, become more competitive and be able to stay on the land. At the moment the Land Commission are not working and farmers cannot purchase land. This is why I would agree with Deputy Deasy on the importance of setting up some sort of land authority in the very near future. In the west there are small farmers trying to survive on rapidly diminishing incomes and there are large financial institutions buying large tracts of land for forestry. The plantation of forestry has become big business. The western development grant for farmers for drainage and land reclamation etc. has been done away with and now the only grant aid available to farmers in the west is the 80 per cent grant aid towards afforestation. The scale is tipped positively in one direction and people on the land are being asked to leave. As politicians we are not doing enough to provide alternatives because of our unemployment problems generally.
One positive step would be to set up a land authority to give young farmers and people who are willing to spend their time in agriculture a chance to upgrade the land and to increase the acreage they already have.
When this legislation is passed, the next step will be the dissolution of the Land Commission. If the Minister wants to do something extremely positive and make a name for himself in the short space of time he has left, he should set up a land authority or agency. Perhaps when the Minister is replying he would tell us when he intends to have a Land Commission dissolution Bill brought before the House and if he has any intention of setting up a land agency or a land authority.
First I would like to thank the various Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the Second Stage of the Bill. Most prefaced their remarks by saying that this was a tidying up mechanism to wind up the land bond fund, the guarantee fund and the cost fund.
Section 7 provides for the redemption of cottage purchase annuities. It is estimated that approximately £25,000 will be paid to a number of local authorities under this heading. The decision to redeem the land bonds was taken in 1989 and this legislation is a natural follow-on to the changes effected at that time.
I will endeavour to deal with the points raised as best I can. The point was made that a number of cottage owners were finding it difficult to pay the arrears of annuities. In cases of genuine hardship, every effort has been made to reach a reasonable arrangement. While I am sure the arrangement reached in each case does not meet the needs and requirements of the individual involved, we have the best of intentions. We have decided to establish a working group to look into this question and we will await the outcome of their deliberations and their suggestions. It is worth making the point that, even though some people are finding it difficult to pay the arrears due, there is no penalty clause and no interest is charged on the arrears outstanding. It comes down to a matter of endeavouring to have the arrears paid off with the current annuity and coming to a suitable arrangement in that regard.
While the question of a land policy can be related to the Bill, it is not dealt with in any section. Under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress the Government are committed to reviewing all national policies relating to agriculture. The question of land tenure and ownership would come under that umbrella. In that context, account will be taken of the need to promote structural change in farming, including the promotion of lifetime transfer of land and the early establishment of young well educated and trained farmers on those holdings.
A number of measures — two in particular — have been taken during the past year which should be of help in increasing land mobility considerably. The income tax liability threshold in respect of land leased by farmers aged 55 or over has been increased to £4,000. Nowadays there is greater flexibility in the operation of the installation aid scheme for young farmers which should enable a greater number of small farmers to qualify for benefits under that scheme.
The question of establishing a land authority was raised in a number of contributions. While I do not wish to be disparaging, much of what was said was aspirational. When one talks about establishing a new land authority one has to deal with the specifics and take account of constitutional requirements, such as owner's rights. For instance, how would we acquire land which would then be redistributed? Deputy Connaughton suggested that we should have a waiting arrangement but we have to ask ourselves if it would be practical to implement such an arrangement. It should be pointed out also that the Bill to dissolve the Land Commission will come before the House in the not too distant future.
If we were to turn back the pages of history and go back to the origins of the Land Commission in the 1800s and consider the way land policy has evolved, we would see that the agricultural scene has greatly changed. The Land Commission when first established endeavoured to come to terms with the many serious structural problems in relation to land ownership, fixity of tenure, fair rent and so on. Subsequently, large estates around the country were acquired and redistributed to small holdings. There is no doubt that during that period the Land Commission performed a significant economic and social role.
There was a suggestion in those contributions which favoured the establishment of a land authority that the State should provide financial resources to ensure that small farmholders can compete on a level playing field when land becomes available and the normal sale arrangements apply. However I have to ask who would provide those resources. Would the State provide them or would they come from some other source and then be made available to the people for whom we wish to cater?
On the question of controlling sales, a number of Deputies made the valid point that EC nationals are entitled to buy land in Ireland. Section 45 of the Land Act, 1965, controls the sale of land to non-community citizens. Under the Land Commission (Dissolution) Bill this control function will be assigned to the Minister for Agriculture and Food.
It was suggested that we should control the way land is used, but the reality is that the Common Agricultural Policy already dictates and determines the way land is to be used today. It comes down therefore, to identifying what is needed, what is required in the marketplace and making the necessary arrangements for individual farm holdings. In this context, it is the Government's clear intention to preserve the family farm structure which forms part and parcel of the fabric of rural Ireland.
In relation to unregistered bonds, Deputy Quinn inquired if it will be possible, to establish ownership in all cases. The answer is no; there probably will be cases which will never be finalised. This Bill does not provide for winding-up those accounts. Clearly this matter will have to be dealt with in the legislation to abolish the Land Commission.
What will happen to those moneys?
They will go back to the Exchequer. Deputy Quinn also asked how much it cost the Exchequer annually to meet borrowing charges on the £76 million borrowed in order to redeem all land bonds in 1989. The cost comes to about £8 million per annum.
Deputy Deasy asked about waiving the annuities below a certain threshold. Section 4 of the Land Act, 1984, makes provision for waiving the annuities below a certain threshold. The figure in the 1984 Act was £2 but, by ministerial order, the threshold, which is now at £10, may be increased. Deputy Enright raised the question of capitalising on land purchase annuities and giving a discount on the total value. The total value of the annuities is about £80 million and many farmers have already benefited from discount on their annuities over the years. The committee looking at the whole area of annuities will probably examine that matter even more closely.
Deputy Connaughton asked about writing off small annuities. About 77,000 annuities were written off in the early eighties and about 70,000 were written off since 1989 which leaves 46,000 accounts to be cleared. Deputy Connaughton also mentioned the cost to the State in relation to the winding-up of the Land Commission; he said there would have been accumulated losses on sales incurred by the Land Commission and the division of estates. This factor has been taken into account in the redemption of all land bonds covered by this Bill. It is not anticipated that the problem will resurface when the Land Commission are finally dissolved.
I thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, for your patience and indulgence in this matter. I also thank all Members who made worthwhile contributions to the Bill. I am sure that much of what has been said will be relevant to the dissolution of the Land Commission when the Bill comes before the House.
Question put and agreed to.