Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Dec 1991

Vol. 414 No. 4

Land Bond Bill, 1991: Second Stage.

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

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill is a technical piece of legislation which is required as a consequence of the Government decision in 1989 to redeem all outstanding land bonds for cash. Land bonds were State guaranteed stocks which were used by the Land Commission to purchase land for the purposes of the land settlement policy pursued by Governments since the foundation of the State. Interest was paid on the bonds twice yearly by dividends until they were redeemed. Redemption did not take place on a specified date, as is customary with national loans and other gilt-edged stocks, but by means of an annual draw, similar to a lottery. If a bond number came up, that bond was redeemed. Land bonds were traded on the Stock Exchange.

When land was sold to the Land Commission, the sellers normally received bonds in payment for the land being acquired. When these lands were subsequently allocated to new owners, payment to the Land Commission was usually made by means of annuities. These annuities were paid into a fund, the land bond fund and the Exchequer made a similar matching contribution to this fund on an annual basis. The total resources thus provided to the fund were used to pay the dividends on the bonds and to provide a sinking fund to finance the annual land bond redemptions.

The Government decision to redeem all land bonds on 3 April 1989 out of Exchequer borrowing meant that the two funds central to the administrative arrangements in respect of land bonds were no longer necessary; these funds to which I refer are the land bond fund and the guarantee fund.

Statutory authority to redeem the outstanding land bonds was conferred by a series of Land and Land Bond Acts, as set out in section 2 (1) of the Bill. Unfortunately, neither those Acts nor any of the many other Acts dealing with land bonds provided for the winding up of the land bond fund nor the guarantee fund in circumstances in which they were no longer required. This Bill is thus a tidying-up mechanism to abolish the funds as they no longer have any function to perform. Section 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill deal with the necessary provisions relating to both funds, including the transfer of moneys at present in, or due to, the funds into the Exchequer.

About £1.8 million of the bonds redeemed in 1989 were classified as "unregistered". That meant that they had been set aside for eventual registration in the names of persons, from whom the Land Commission had acquired lands, when clearance of title to the lands in question had been completed. The moneys in respect of those bonds are held in trust and will earn deposit interest in a special account in the Central Bank up to the time when matters of title are settled and the moneys due to claimants are paid over. Section 2 of the Bill makes provision for these arrangements.

Apart from the provisions relating to the land bond fund and the guarantee fund already referred to, this Bill also makes a provision in respect of a third, related, fund, called the costs fund. This fund bears the costs which are due to vendors of land in respect of expenses incurred in selling their land to the Land Commission. Existing legislation provides that such costs are payable in land bonds only, so it is necessary to amend the legislation to provide for payment of costs in cash — now that all land bonds themselves have been redeemed for cash. Section 3 of the Bill makes the necessary legislative amendments.

Finally, as a result of the dissolution of the guarantee fund under section 4 of the Bill, it is necessary to take action in respect of what are known as cottage purchase annuities. These are annual payments due to local authorities and made by persons who have purchased cottages from the authorities. However, legislation provides that these annuities must be collected by the Land Commission in circumstances where the cottage owners are also paying land purchase annuities to the commission. If arrears of cottage purchase annuities occur, the commission still have an obligation to pay the amounts due to the local authorities, and the guarantee fund is liable for these amounts. Since this fund is being dissolved, however, new arrangements have to be made in respect of the cottage purchase annuities. The optimum and most cost effective solution to the problem is to waive the annuities, which total less than £2,500 per annum and are falling every year. Section 7 of the Bill provides for this.

In addition, however, since an obligation remains on the Land Commission to continue to pay the annual amounts due to the local authorities, arrangements will be made for the Exchequer to pay over the redemption values of the cottage purchase annuities to the local authorities. This will cost an estimated £25,000.

As I said at the outset, this is essentially a technical non-controversial piece of legislation which becomes necessary as a consequence of the redemption of outstanding land bonds in 1989. The main object of the Bill is to transfer the assets and liabilities of the land bond fund to the Exchequer as the fund has now outlived its original purpose.

I commend the Bill for the approval of the House.

Mr. Deasy

I would not say this is a non-contentious Bill. I am sure some Deputies will have some contentious comments to make. It is obviously the prelude to the dissolution of the Land Commission. I would have thought the legislation would have come before the House several years ago as it was initiated in the mid-eighties, yet in 1991 we are only taking the preliminary steps. This Land Bond Bill has to be proceeded with if we are to dissolve the Land Commission legally. It is interesting that one of the funds being abolished under this Bill is the guarantee fund which was established in 1891, 100 years ago. We have gone backwards in the interim where land policy is concerned. A successful effort was made in 1891 and there was subsequent legislation in 1923 and in following years, to devise a land policy for all the land holders and potential land holders in this country, particularly smallholders. That policy has been abandoned.

In conjunction with this legislation we will have the dissolution of the Land Commission without any statutory body taking its place. That is a totally undesirable development. We must have some form of land authority to ensure that the land is properly distributed and that the maximum number of people can make a meaningful living from the land. We have seen the preliminary steps here for a free-for-all in which everybody and anybody in the EC and not just in Ireland, whether farmers, multinationals, businessmen or financiers can acquire as much land as they can purchase without any reference to this assembly or to the law of the land. It is disgraceful that the Land Commission is being dissolved without allowing for another authority to take its place. Will the Minister make it clear to this House in the ensuing legislation with regard to the abolition of the Land Commission that we will have some, if not total, control in this House as to how the land is to be utilised and by whom?

This hits at the very roots of our society. This legislation will bring about a chaotic situation in the sale and distribution of land. It is not good enough. The most important thing for any Department dealing with land and agriculture is that a statutory body should see to it that the land is used to its maximum potential. If the introduction and passage of this Bill and the subsequent Bill on the dissolution of the Land Commission stops that from happening we have failed the people. We must have legislation to ensure that there is not a free-for-all in which the weak lose out and the greedy and powerful take over. This Bill facilitates such a scenario. It facilitates the return of a feudal system with massive land owners and tenants having to rent land at any price. We must have controls. There is nobody in the world better at exploiting their fellow countryman than the Irish and that type of exploitation is being invited by this legislation and by the type of legislation being contemplated by the Government.

In relation to the specifics of the Bill, I was surprised to see that as much as £1.8 million of land bonds are as yet unregistered. As far as I am aware the Land Commission have not acquired land since the late seventies for subdivision among smallholders. A sum of £1.8 million is a lot of money considering that the Land Commission have not been active in purchasing land.

Mr. Kirk

There is difficulty in establishing title.

Mr. Deasy

It shows how inefficient the system is. An interesting aspect of the Bill is that cottage purchase annuities will be waived. There is no longer any need for the people in question to pay those annuities. I appeal to the Minister and to the Government to see to it that annuities in general are examined with a view to reducing the burden on farmers, particularly small farmers who cannot meet repayments of land annuities. I am referring to those farmers who bought land from the Land Commission for very high prices in the late seventies and into the early eighties when land was often sold for as much as £3,000 to £4,000 per acre. At present day values that would probably represent £10,000 or £12,000 an acre. Farmers are going through an extraordinary crisis in incomes while at the same time having to pay annuities based on purchase prices of that order. It is neither realistic nor just to expect them to continue to pay.

I hope the Minister and the Government will bear in mind the hardship being caused to thousands of our farmers. I fully agree with the waiver system for the cottage holders and the people with the acre of ground, as obviously the administration of that scheme costs much more than we would actually take in in receipts from the scheme. The waiver scheme should be extended to relieve the people who are suffering genuine hardship because of their inability to pay top prices for land whose value has diminished tremendously with the fall in agricultural incomes. Will the Minister let us know if there is any hope or proposal from the Government to help those people who are genuinely suffering? Is there any hope that a scheme will be devised to relax the payments they are presently enduring?

We on this side of the House feel there should be some scheme to relieve the burden of those payments and we may be introducing some amendments on this issue as the debate progresses. I am sure my colleagues from other constituencies have had the same experience as I in regard to these land annuities. As time progresses and the real value of farm incomes drops and while these land annuities remain as high as ever, people are in genuine difficulty. I am asking the Minister to deal with this matter in his reply to the debate.

Mr. Quinn

As the Minister of State said, this is a technical piece of legislation and the House should deal with it as such. Its purpose is to give effect to a very substantial institutional transformation in our society.

This is the centenary of the death of Charles Stewart Parnell, among others. One could write the history of the last 100 years of this State by simply writing a history of the struggle for land. At the centre of this struggle is the Land Commission, and this technical legislation is necessary to give effect to the decision of a previous Administration to abolish it.

The Land Commission grew out of a need to resolve a major economic conflict between land owner and worker on the land at a time when agriculture was the dominant economic activity of this country. I would like to know what mechanism the Government will put in place of the Land Commission to manage the resource of land and whether it would be connected to the Department of Agriculture and Food, the Department of the Environment or to a number of different Departments.

Mr. Deasy

There is no mechanism.

Mr. Quinn

I am afraid that is the case. The agenda that resulted in the creation of the Land Commission over 100 years ago, and that went through successive changes from the annuities campaign led by Peadar O'Donnell and foisted upon Éamon de Valera in the thirties, and right through the economic war with Great Britain, has been totally transformed. However, there is a new agenda and to simply say that the old agenda is over is to ignore the fact that we have moved on.

There is undoubtedly a need for some kind of land management mechanism and, at the end of the day, the Department of Finance must have a central role because, while the land might not necessarily be primarily an agricultural resource, it is an economic resource and it will remain an economic resource both in the area of primary agriculture in terms of maintaining a lifestyle for rural Ireland which, while numbers might decline, will certainly not disappear, and as an economic resource. If the work of the European Commission as indicated by President Delors is to be taken at face value, his commitment and that of others in the European Community will be to maintain and consolidate rural society for a variety of reasons — for its own intrinsic worth to begin with, and for the implications that the absolute decline of such a society would have for the rest of European society.

There will quite clearly be an array of interventionist measures emanating from the Commission which will have a financial dimension and which could, in some cases, very much distort the market for land here in a manner that could lead to a very unacceptable manifestation of landlordism, of exploitation of one kind or another. I make this point because the Department of Finance will have a central role providing incentives for different kinds of land activity. We have seen what happened in Scotland in ecological terms where the Highlands were reafforested with coniferous plantations on a scale that was damaging to the overall ecological balance of the natural habitat of a very beautiful part of the continent of Europe. Now that we have had the experience of that kind of activity, similar concerns must be expressed in this House.

In agreeing to a technical measure to provide for the abolition of the Land Commission whose historic role has now ended, it is appropriate that we send a clear message to the powers that be in Government that the mere abolition of the Land Commission cannot be a negative step; there must be an alternative mechanism of land management. It may be that this area of responsibility could be added to the remit of the Environmental Protection Agency.

There are factors that will have an economic dimension to them that would be as important to the fabric of rural society as agriculture originally was. The conservation of natural habitats may become an economic activity with people living in rural Ireland earning an income from that kind of work. The ownership of such natural habitats will, therefore, have to be worked out.

The Department of Finance, through the Office of Public Works, is probably one of the largest single owners of such lands. I refer particularly to an area in Connemara with which I am familiar where the acquisition of additional land is at this moment being discussed. For some time the State will have both a direct and an indirect role in managing this kind of area which is seen as having intrinsic value and is no longer — fortunately for those people who had the good fortune to escape it — inhabited by people living in very meagre and poor circumstances.

This land is, nevertheless, of extraordinary value from a variety of points of view. That land will have to be managed. The market for that land will have to be constructed in a way that meets the needs of the 21st century, but in a manner that is dissimilar to the way the Land Commission met the needs of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Tourism, recreation, marine development and mariculture will impact in areas that were previously the responsibility of the Land Commission. A positive framework must be put in place to co-ordinate the development plans of the local authorities. As many Members of this House will recognise, large tracts of these lands, particularly in rural counties, are in no way affected by the development plan for the county, which is the development control mechanism. There is no overall system that monitors the use of the land outside the built up urban areas or the market mechanism that provides for its exchange between a willing vendor and a willing purchaser.

For those reasons it is necessary to point out to the Department of Finance that the mere abolition of the Land Commission does not absolve the State from the necessity to provide a new framework that will address itself to the needs of the 21st century in terms of managing the land resources of the whole of this island. I would hope that we will get the co-operation of our friends and colleagues in Northern Ireland in that respect.

I have one or two questions on technical points in the Bill to which the Minister might reply. From the information that has been given to the House it appears that what we are doing is closing down two or three statutory accounts for which no mechanism was originally provided, and transferring the balances in those accounts to a central fund which will be at the disposal of the Minister for Finance. It appears that all the outstanding land bonds were redeemed in 1989 at a value of £76 million. I presume the amount borrowed, which underpins the redemption and is approximately £10 million per year, forms part and parcel of our national borrowing requirement and is not identified as a separate account in the Estimates but rather is included with a number of other items.

Given that there is an outstanding balance of £1.8 million in relation to property the title of which has yet to be established, is it possible that the title in some instances will never be clearly established and that after a certain period a residual amount of money will effectively be forfeited or be kept in perpetuity? The Minister of State made reference to this matter in his speech. I would like to know if there will be a cutoff point. As Deputy Deasy said, the Land Commission have not been buying land for quite some time. I note also that the registration of title can be a cumbersome, slow and indefinite process but there is a time limit, ultimately. I wonder, therefore, at what stage will a line be drawn, when we will no longer have any obligation in respect of this matter because a title cannot be established. Will legislation be needed to resolve the matter at that stage or does this legislation contain within it the necessary legal mechanisms to clear the slate and finalise the accounts? Will the Minister of State respond to those two questions when replying?

Mr. Sherlock

Land and the ownership of it, has been a major issue throughout modern Irish history. This Bill in many ways marks the continuation of a policy to allow people to purchase land. The demand for ownership of land, as stated in the land wars of the 1880s, the consolidation of this State as an independent state and the Land Act, 1923 led to the creation of a land policy which has not served this country well.

The Land Act, 1923, was pushed through by the then Minister for Agriculture, Paddy Hogan, to transfer unpurchased holdings from landlords to tenants.

The policy which followed the 1923 Act was characterised as an agricultural policy but it was not such a policy. Since that time agricultural policy has been concerned with maximising the incomes of farmers but it has wrongly viewed agriculture as an industry in its own right rather than as the first stage of an integrated scheme combined with processing and marketing. Agriculture is in crisis today not because of the proposed reform of the Common Agricultural Policy but because of the largely misconceived notion about the role of land in such a policy.

The Bill is the latest financial mechanism to enable people purchase land, will give effect to the Government decision of 1989 to redeem outstanding land bonds for approximately £76 million and will establish a system under which annuities will be paid directly to the Exchequer. Another feature of the Bill is the provision under which annuities will be waived in the case of those who purchased their cottages under the Labourers Act, 1936. In effect this provision will allow arrears, owed by small agricultural labourers, to be written off. That is a sensible move. The agricultural policies pursued during the years have tended to help the big farmers only to the detriment of small farmers and have contributed to the disappearance of the agricultural labourers class. This can be traced back to the Land Act, 1923 and the policies pursued by Paddy Hogan and successive Ministers for Agriculture.

Land bonds issued by the Land Commission in respect of land purchased amounted to, in effect, a mortgage scheme organised by the State. The 1986 report of the Comptroller and Auditor General drew attention to the outstanding arrears of land annuities and the rent collection position due to the high price of land at the time of purchase. The price of land rocketed during the bonanza years, in the late seventies of the Common Agricutural Policy. As the Minister is aware, many farmers had to purchase land from the Land Commission at very high prices because people with fat cheque books bid against them. The Land Commission sold the land at its market value and, as a consequence, people are now in trouble. The Minister should look sympathetically at this matter.

On one occasion I advised the Land Commission that there were two smallholders who were interested in a sub-division due to take place a short time later. They met all the criteria laid down by the Land Commission but on the day of the auction a businessman paid £4,000 an acre for the land. The two smallholders concerned could not compete. I cite this as an example of what happened at that time. The price paid for the land was far in excess of its agricultural value.

The Common Agricultural Policy failed miserably to develop a comprehensive system of industrial and marketing linkage between the producer on the land and the consumer of food, timber or horticultural products. During the years hundreds of millions of pounds were given to farmers by way of development grants without any agreed targets being set. The Workers Party have continually argued that what is needed is a land use plan which will maximise the overall contribution of the sector to the economy in terms of income generated and employment created. A land use plan should specify how all parts of national territory should be used and identify those areas best suited to forestry as against conventional agriculture.

The Bill which will shortly come before the Daíl to abolish the Land Commission will leave a vacuum. There is a need to establish a land authority similar to the Industrial Development Authority. The Workers Party call for such an authority to be established. The Land Commission deterred inadequate production and the purchase of farms by non-farmers. People are aware that this control no longer exists, while sub-division is under siege. What is required is a short to medium term response with the aim of continuing the policy of making people aware that there is a lack of funds.

It should be our aim to introduce a new land policy as the land is our greatest natural resource. If what we produce on the land was manufactured and marketed we would create jobs in the future. This has not been happening because we have no policy. The Minister should consider enlarging holdings, controlling purchases, the position in relation to inheritance and land leasing. If additional land was made available to people on reasonable terms they would work it.

The Bill seeks to do away with the Land Commission. What then is the plan for land use by the Government? Will we return to the bad old days of landlordism and gross exploitation of tenant farmers by greedy speculators to drive small farmers off the land?

Mr. Cullimore

I compliment the Minister on bringing this Bill before the House. Its primary function provides for the dissolution of the guarantee fund which was established under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, and the land bond fund established under the Land Act, 1923, and the transfer of moneys from the two funds to the Exchequer.

Land bonds were State guaranteed security created and issued by the Minister for Finance for the purpose of paying for land purchased by the Land Commission. At the time the Minister for Finance controlled the fund — the land bond fund — which paid all dividends due on land bonds and into which annuities were paid and collected by the Land Commission from persons to whom the land was resold. If, at that time, the price paid for the land equalled the sum received from its resale and if there were no arrears, the system of land purchased was self-financing. However, as a result of lower resale prices, the downward revision of annuities and arrears meant that the Exchequer was required to pay approximately half the dividends due on the land bonds. Arrears on annuities have increased considerably over the past number of years and many farmers in my constituency of Wexford are in arrears to a considerable extent. The prime reason is the high cost of land annuities because of the high interest rates charged years ago. It is a very serious problem and a difficult situation for small farmers who have tried to get a settlement for the purchase of land. They owe considerable annuities and, as I said, their problems stemmed from the high interest rates charged in the early eighties. I ask the Minister to look sympathetically at their situation.

The ability of farmers to met these high land annuities has been eroded because of a decline in farmer incomes in recent years. Many farmers are so far in arrears that it is impossible for them to meet their commitments given the economic situation in farming at present. It is worth pointing out that those facing such difficulties are small farmers who received land from the Land Commission to extend their holdings and to improve their viability. If a serious effort is not made to resolve land annuity problems many small farmers will have little option but to dispose of land to meet their commitments which would have the effect of further disimproving their viability and, ultimately, forcing such families off the land.

The Minister for Agriculture and Food set up an inter-Departmental group which are currently examining the land annuity issue with a view to making recommendations to resolve the issue of land annuity arrears. I hope they will put forward practical recommendations which will provide a meaningful and permanent solution to the problem of arrears facing many farmers today.

The Bill is winding-up legislation. While I welcome it and compliment the Minister on introducing it, I should like him and the Government to focus on the problem of outstanding arrears and annuities for small farmers. Week after week in my constituency small farmers come to my clinic in desperation looking for a settlement figure to enable them to get on with farming so that they can maintain their families. I ask the Minister to take the opportunity over the coming months to solve this problem once and for all.

Mr. Enright

It is an historic occasion to be able to speak on this Bill. The guarantee fund, which this Bill dissolves, was established under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, to enable farmers to purchase land from the Land Commission and to ensure that there would be a guarantee fund. In doing away with the guarantee fund we are effectively dissolving the Land Commission. However, the Government have not put forward proposals in regard to setting up an authority whereby they would monitor what is happening to land. I am afraid there will not be any controls in relation to land. Some controls are required and there should be an essential requirement whereby the Government would be able to monitor what is happening in relation to land purchases, sales and transfers. In all my time in politics I have never seen as many small farmers in financial difficulties and under such pressure from financial institutions, the associated banks, the ACC and building societies.

Many farmers are obliged to sell their lands which are being acquired by larger farmers and people in business. A dangerous trend is developing; I do not have to remind the House of the serious decline in the numbers involved in farming. Since 1980 the numbers have declined from somewhere in the region of 240,000 farming families to 158,000. They may not be the exact figures but I am sure the Minister will confirm the general trend. The IFA referred to problems confronting farmers in relation to land purchase annuities. They estimate that 2,000 farmers have a chronic problem because of extremely high payments and that they have a very high level of arrears. The IFA document goes on to state that 14,000 farmers are in arrears. Many farmers obtained land from the Land Commission at a time when the Commission purchased the land at a cost of £2,000 to £3,000 per acre. These lands were let later by the Land Commission to farmers at a very high level of annuities.

On a regular basis I discuss problems with farmers in my constituency — I am sure these problems are experienced on a nationwide basis — some of whom are unable to pay their Land Commission annuities. They depend on headage payments and other grants, whether for cows, sheep or whatever, to make these repayments. What is happening — and I object to this — is that the Department are retaining those grants in lieu of annuities. Some people will say, that is business and it is hard luck. However in my constituency there are farmers who have not got enough food on the table to feed themselves and their families. The Minister should give very sympathetic consideration to the matter of these deductions against annuities, which should be of concern to the Minister; it is certainly of concern to me. Many farmers are in serious financial difficulty and I would offer a suggestion to the Minister and his advisers which would perhaps solve the problem of annuity arrears faced by farmers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is this entirely relevant to the legislation?

Mr. Enright

It is relevant. There is a major problem with regard to the payment of annuities. This is a Land Bond Bill which deals with the purchase of land and with annuities. What I am suggesting——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It will surprise the Deputy to know that the Chair is very familiar with the position governing land bonds because of the fact that——

Mr. Enright

He was a wealthy landowner in his time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy knows that in a Second Stage debate you can refer to something that is not in the proposed legislation but should be in it. If the Deputy is indicating something of that kind it is relevant. If not, it should be only a passing reference.

Mr. Enright

It is something that should be in the legislation. A number of Bills will be dealing with this matter. However, there is an opportunity for the Minister to consider the situation. To alleviate the problems of farmers who face great annuity repayments I propose that the Minister consider a scheme such as the 1988 tenant purchase scheme introduced by the Department of the Environment and operated by local authorities. Under that scheme the local authorities calculated the price of a house and gave a 40 per cent discount to tenants, with a further 10 per cent discount for pre-1960 houses, together with a discount of £2,000 in lieu of new house grant. Many farmers would favour such a scheme which could be set up in co-operation with the Department and the Land Commission. The total annuities due could be capitalised and a discount allowed if the moneys were paid within a five year period. Loans could be obtained from the ACC or the banks. Many farmers will be in serious debt for years to come if a solution is not found.

I have outlined the decline in the numbers involved in agriculture. That position will deterioriate even further unless some remedy is proposed. I have discussed this matter with farmers throughout my constituency of Laois-Offaly who believe that if a scheme of the kind I mentioned was introduced it would go a long way towards solving the problem. I think the Minister will agree that the decline in incomes is such that something will have to be done to keep farmers on the land. I can supply the Minister with further details in this regard, although I am sure his officials can obtain these details from the Department of the Environment. As I have suggested, the amounts due should be capitalised and the farmers should receive a generous discount if the money is paid within five years.

The Minister stated that some funds have not been collected as a result of a title problem, and I can understand that. I would ask the Minister to request his officials to have such problems resolved. In some cases when the Land Commission acquired land the money was held in trust. Some of the families involved may have since died or the solicitors dealing with the cases may have died with the result that these cases have been left aside and have not been dealt with. The Minister said that the figure for bonds redeemed in 1989 and classified as unregistered is £1.8 million. I would ask the Minister to see if those cases can be reactivated so that the people can be paid for the lands.

Another problem that arises is the considerable delays in the vesting of land. As I understand it, when a farmer was allotted land the Land Commission vested the land in his name. The Land Commission had to acquire these lands from other people and very often problems arose with rights of way, water, fencing and so on. I am aware that there is a shortage of staff in the Department and there are problems with mapping and so on, but in some cases the vesting of land takes from five to 15 years. I know of farmers who, having been allotted land by the Land Commission—in some cases the rent was fully paid — built on the land but then discovered that the land had not been vested. It would be of benefit to everybody if that problem could be resolved. The Minister may think the problem is not that extensive but as far as I can see quite a few people are left in that position.

Farming is going through a difficult time. The situation in agriculture is every bit as serious as it was in 1966 at the height of the farmers' rights campaign. More time needs to be devoted to a discussion on agriculture. This Bill is of some benefit as it gives us the opportunity to highlight the problems confronting farmers. I ask the Minister to seek ways to resolve the difficulties that farmers have in paying their Land Commission annuities, and to consider the idea I put forward.

Mr. Aylward

This is a technical Bill. I will take the opportunity, however, to express my views and some of my reservations about aspects of the Bill. The Land Commission have done excellent work over the years and were responsible for setting up many family farms throughout the country at a time when agriculture was a much more attractive proposition than it is today. Like other speakers, I am very aware of the great difficulties being experienced by farmers at present with their Land Commission annuity arrears. This crisis is not unique to any county. The same problems exist throughout the entire country and it is easy to understand the reasons for this.

Back in the late seventies and eighties, the Land Commission acquired land at a high cost and these holdings were eventually allocated to the farmers in need of additional land. Naturally, the annuity to be paid had to reflect the price which the Land Commission had paid for the land. People who acquired land at that time find themselves today in an impossible position. We are all too well aware of declining incomes from agriculture. It is difficult for any farmer to survive without having to meet repayments on loans from the lending institutions.

The person who has to pay a Land Commission annuity is in the same position and he is finding it impossible to do so. The former Minister for Agriculture and Food recognised there was a problem and set up a working committee to look into the area of annuity repayments. I have advocated for a long time that the Department work out a procedure to offer some relief to farmers in this position. Indeed, we all saw how well the general tax amnesty worked in relation to the payment of tax arrears and the money that accrued to the Exchequer as a result, and I do not see why something similar should not be done about the arrears in Land Commission annuities. I appeal to the Minister and the working committee that the farmers in this position should be given a general amnesty and also a reasonable period to negotiate a loan so that they could write off their annuities at a reasonable rate. In the light of the present difficulties, I think that is a reasonable request and I hope the Minister will give it serious consideration when the working committee reports back to him.

At present the practice in the Department is to withhold grants and headage payments in respect of outstanding annuities. I seriously question whether it is right, or even legal, to withhold these payments. Many people are dependent on them simply to exist, particularly coming up to Christmas. I am aware of many cases where these payments are being withheld and, again, it emphasises the difficulties people are experiencing. Those involved in agriculture were always proud to pay their way over the years but now they are not in a position to do so. These payments are owed to them and it is very disheartening to have them withheld in lieu of annuity arrears. I hope the Minister will examine my suggestion of some type of amnesty, or at least discuss the problem with the farming organisations so that some arrangement can be reached.

I have found in the past number of years that there is nobody in the Land Commission to whom one can make a case or who will call on the farmer to discuss his problems. The previous speaker referred to problems over rights of way and with titles and farmers are being left to rectify these problems themselves. I cannot, for example, ring up somebody in the Land Commission to discuss a problem and there seems to be a great indifference to the farmers who find themselves in a difficult position. The Department should be able to provide some solutions to the problems facing farmers. Indeed, I know that Coillte Teoranta found it impossible to deal with the Land Commission.

I accept that the Land Commission did excellent work but perhaps due to a lack of staff or uncertainty of their position it is now very difficult for a farmer to get satisfaction when dealing with them at present. I have always maintained that there is a great need for a land authority of some type and it is important that this be given serious consideration. European cohesion is probably the most important topic at present, but I wonder what will happen to us if we become a part of a united states of Europe as envisaged. At present foreigners are buying huge tracts of land in Ireland. I would not like to see this trend of land going out of Irish ownership continuing, but the indications are that it will become much worse. Whatever form the new authority will take, I hope their powers will be strengthened in order to protect the future of Irish agriculture. The sale of land to foreigners was more prevalent in the west, but it is now spreading to the other provinces.

I wish to reiterate that the question of Land Commission annuity arrears is the most difficult problem facing people at present. A very encouraging sign in dealing with the problem was the setting up of the working committee. I hope that the Minister and the Department, having set up that committee, will ensure that the future of those who were fortunate enough to have received Land Commission divisions but who are the unfortunate ones today because of changed circumstances, will be protected. I earnestly request that the Minister consider the position most favourably with a view to bringing about a solution.

Mr. Connaughton

The debate on the Land Bond Bill gives the House the opportunity to consider related problems. The Bill is technical. Principally it provides for the dissolution of the guarantee fund established under the Purchase of Land Act, 1891, the land bond fund established under the Land Act, 1923, and transfers the moneys in those funds to the Exchequer.

The Bill is a testimony to all that is wrong because of the lack of a land policy in Ireland. Not alone do we not have a land policy, but it is my understanding, that neither the Department of Agriculture and Food nor any other Department carry out research for the compilation of a reasonable land policy. That shows a complete lack of understanding by this Government, and many other Governments, about the enormous problems, current and potential, confronting the rural community. I do not have to point out to the House that it is of paramount importance that the Government themselves adopt a land use policy that will take note of the sweeping changes brought about by reform within the European Community. It is very important that we work to produce such a policy from here on in. Although it is late to be starting now, it is better late than never.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle understands this better than most. The Land Commission was set up at the turn of the century and provided opportunities for many thousands of people by purchasing huge tracts of land from landlords through the land bond system, and subsequently redistributed the land to peasants, as they were then called, people who were landless or very small farmers. I have to admit, as I have said in the Chamber on many occasions, that that part of the exercise was of tremendous importance to the rural community. In the past 50, 70 or 80 years many people who would not otherwise have been able to purchase an acre of land were given the opportunity to farm.

While speaking about land bonds, I cannot allow this occasion to pass without saying that, in my view, purchasing by the land bond systems was daylight robbery. I have never been able to understand how land bonds were considered legal or constitutional, and I have no doubt that if, in the present legal climate where everything is questioned, any Minister for Lands, Minister for Agriculture, or any group, tried to bring in the concept of land bonds today there would be a public hanging at dawn because such a concept would not be constitutional. However, that is all water under the bridge and there is not much point delaying the Chamber by talking too much about it. Suffice to say that when many people around hear about the dissolution of the land bond system under this Bill they are likely to throw their caps in the air. Land bonds cost many people a lot of money and caused a lot of frustration. When selling their land they were not able to get the market price but had to accept land bonds; they also had to accept considerably less than they would have obtained on the open market. That problem was nothing compared to the problem faced by those people when they went to cash their land bonds on the Stock Exchange. There is no way of calculating how much money was lost down the years because of that policy. For those reasons I have no difficulty with that part of the Bill which says goodbye to a very bad page in history. I have no doubt that whatever Government may be in power in the next 50 years or so, they will have nothing to do with land bonds in any size, shape or form.

It is incumbent on all Members who represent rural constituencies to mention several issues in relation to the Bill. A sum of £76 million is mentioned as being the total value of land bonds outstanding, calculated in 1989. From my experience of being involved with the Department, I understand there will be a huge bill for the Exchequer the day the Land Commission is dissolved legally. The Department must be able to calculate exactly what the price tag will be, and when replying I should like the Minister to say what the cost to the Exchequer will be. I assume what will happen is that all land bonds will cease to exist, thus leading to the huge cost for the Exchequer. People should be in no doubt that the Land Commission is already dissolved and has been so for several years — if ever there was a dead duck it was the Land Commission.

No one seems to be worried about the need for a new land policy, or a new land use policy which would be much more appropriate. It is very important that there should be a land use programme to give effect to the aspiration of many young trained farmers to earn their living in agriculture. One issue clouding the subject relates to environmentally sensitive issues, such as afforestation, and that is a matter to which I will refer in a moment. Many people, particularly those in authority, seem to forget that agriculture in Ireland is still very important; it is not as important as it used to be but it is very important. If we accept that fact then it follows that those who make up the agricultural industry are equally important. If we are to compete against the best farmers in Europe and outside, and we will have to do that, then it is important that our people be among the best trained.

Any land use policy to be introduced in Ireland would have to acknowledge the presence of the corps of young people coming through the system. It is obvious that we will not be able to compete if we have a nation of elderly farmers; you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. I am worried that the heart of the matter seems to have been forgotten, but that will have to be brought back to centre stage in a land use policy, which will eventually have to be discussed in the House.

When I talk about a land use policy I acknowledge that there are conflicting demands now being made on the environment. For instance, for commercial reasons there is a large pro-afforestation lobby. I have no doubt that it is good for our economy and utilises much bad land inhabited only by snipe over the years but, at the same time, there are certain responsibilities we must honour and checks and balances we must use to ensure we do not overdo it. I happened to attend a meeting last evening in a little village called Woodford on the Galway-Clare border, with hills surrounding that lovely little hamlet. Because of the advantageous grants being given for afforestation, in ten years' time, if all of that afforestation is allowed, one will not even be able to see that lovely little village. I do not think that people living in such a village should be encircled by tall trees. It would appear that this land usage is being encouraged from an environmental point of view but what about people's leisure time about which the Europeans are talking? For instance, how can we ensure there will be sufficient wetlands — of which there are plenty in the area I represent — made available? In striking a proper balance I realise that one would need to be Solomon in all his glory. It is up to the Minister, his Department, Teagasc and others to consider such matters and have them debated here in the House.

There are other matters worthy of mention in relation to this Bill and in this respect I want to echo something referred to by all Members, namely, the huge burden land annuities have become on farmers. When I sat where the Minister is now sitting it was bad then. I must admit there was not much done about the matter then either; it is not a political matter, as such. Obviously farm incomes have worsened considerably since the mid-eighties. We tinkered with the matter on a few occasions. I remember meeting some officials present today who were involved at that time; I remember having met a group from County Wexford who were paying approximately £180 per acre annually. The annuities were that high at that time; unless one shook gold dust on the land or collected it, one could not make them pay. We were able to reduce it slightly but it was not of any real significance. Market forces being what they were at the time, it is fair to say the Land Commission had to pay for the land at market value before getting it. There was a great clamour of protest countrywide around 1981 when I had not been a Member of this House for long. One's clinics were packed with people contending that certain estates were being divided and people wanted a space. Always the last question to be posed was: will I be able to pay for it, or will it be good for me? One cannot blame the Land Commission for the fact that the land was dear at that time. Many people to whom I have spoken over the past seven or eight years, and particularly within the past two, would have been much better off had they never got that land. They now have it, many of them are vested as such, farming is their livelihood, there is no way one can reverse that engine nor do I think anybody would ask them to do so.

Deputy Enright raised a very good point, one I heard the IFA make on a number of occasions. I accept that we are always good at spending somebody else's money. Obviously this is something that will have to be considered very carefully. Given what is happening to the Common Agricultural Policy and in the GATT negotiations, there is no reason to believe that agricultural incomes will be any better next year, or in five years time, than they have been last year or the preceding year; that is the general belief. As long as the Land Commission pursue their policy of charging the rates they are legally entitled to do, it will create enormous hardship and will eventually lead to court cases. This will mean that the Land Commission will bring farmers to court, something they were always very slow to do; that is the way we are trudging along. Particularly, when the Land Commission has been wound down, the last or final fling——

Mr. Kenny

The nail in the coffin; houses for sale across the street.

Mr. Connaughton

If it transpires that there is a fairly big price tag when the Land Commission is dissolved, there will be eyebrows raised at the accumulated losses. I contend this would be an opportune time to examine the huge list in Castlebar of people now unable to meet their annuities. On grounds of equity, any fair-minded person would accept the validity of doing something like that.

I am not talking about eliminating the annuities altogether, not at all. There is no point in talking about a farmer paying, say, £150, £160, £180 or even £100 per acre even for very poor land. The commercial reality is that that game is long over. Rather, I am talking about reducing the annuities to a reasonable figure. I am not in a position to predict how reasonable because they would vary from one part of the country to another based on the quality of land and so on. I should like an estimate of the cost to the taxpayer if such a substantial reduction were made at this stage. In that respect it would be worth examining policy in the Department of the Environment with regard to their sale of local authority houses. There were good and cogent reasons for people to own their homes. Similarly, there are cogent reasons for allowing a farmer own his land. It is a huge subject we have not sufficient time to go into in depth today. Nonetheless there is a case for the Minister and the Government to examine that proposal to ascertain how it could be done in a balanced fashion so that it would not be perceived as yet another charity, a social welfare claim or whatever, but rather done for good reasons, at the end of the day representing good business on the part of the Land Commission because those annuities will not be collected anyway. It must be recognised that many farmers will be unable to meet present annuity demands on them.

There was another matter raised on both sides of the House today, namely, the manner in which the Land Commission decided in recent years to collect grants due to farmers under the ewe premium, cow suckler schemes and so on, in lieu of arrears of annuities on Land Commission land. If I were ever given charge of a Government Department I might argue that would be a way one could get the money at source in that one could contend it was given out by one hand of the Department, owed to the other, and what is wrong with passing it from one to the other? I must put down a marker to the effect that I think the Minister is acting unconstitutionally here. I am not saying there is anything wrong in some cases in that there may be people who could and should have paid such annuities. Nonetheless, I would have to accept what Deputy Enright said that there are people waiting for these cheques to cover their normal living expenses, particularly where there are children in the family, only to be informed that the money has been siphoned off to Castlebar and they will not now receive it. That is not fair play.

About two years ago the Minister for Finance introduced a budget which provided for powers of attachment to be given to the Revenue Commissioners. Under certain conditions, the Revenue Commissioners are entitled to go to the Department of Agriculture and Food or to a livestock mart or creamery and confiscate the money due to a certain farmer. I do not believe the Department of Agriculture and Food have the same right under the law and they are, therefore, acting outside the law in these instances. It is only a matter of time until it is claimed that the power of attachment has been used illegally against an individual and unless the Department change their ways they will be in trouble. That is a symptom of the problem to which I referred earlier. An ideal opportunity has arisen whereby a deal can be done for the benefit of the Department and farmers which will allow the latter to get rid of this huge burden.

There are two or three other important points I wish to raise. Everything I have said has been directly related to the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I appreciate it is very difficult for a Deputy with your knowledge to confine himself to the technicalities of this legislation, which does no more than provide for a tidying-up process following the decision by the Government to redeem land bonds.

Mr. Deasy

Your experience in the Department of Agriculture is standing you in good stead.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

And the fact that I own some land, which makes me superior to you in this matter.

Mr. Deasy

Are the annuities paid up?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Not fully redeemed. I am encouraging Deputy Connaughton not to stray too far into the broad area of agriculture.

Mr. Connaughton

I have seen the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in wellingtons, so I know he knows what I am speaking about.

Mr. Deasy

Be careful. "Scrap Saturday" could take that up.

Mr. Connaughton

Some annuities are very small. There were times when landowners were given the opportunity of paying off a bulk sum because it was not worth sending out a bill for small sums of £2, £3 or £4 per half year. I assume that a large number of people accepted that system. There are others who would owe £40 or £60 per half year or maybe somewhat more. Surely the option should be given to those people to pay off the few hundred pounds, instead of using up computer space and wasting the time of civil servants who should be sending out headage payments.

This Bill gives a timely warning that the Government are remiss in their attitude to a land policy. What has happened in important areas such as commonage division? It is only a trickle at present. If the Government cannot handle it, why not allow the people involved in commonage to employ their own engineer and draw up a draft plan which could be signed by a Land Commission inspector, if such is to be found in the Twenty-six Counties? If the Government have not the staff to do this work, they should allow people to do it themselves.

In the mid-eighties much effort was put into the development of long term leasing, but it seems now to be as dead as a doornail. There is a place for that system. It should be considered again, refined and commented upon publicly. The trouble about any change in land policy is that it takes a long time to catch on or die off.

Mr. Kirk

Let the Deputy tell us how it would operate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please do not encourage the Deputy.

Mr. Connaughton

There are many regulations already drawn up in the Department which would allow this system to operate efficiently, given certain financial inducements. There is certainly a market for it. It would not suit small farmers but the first and second sons of medium and large farmers could make a living on the basis of long term land leasing, sharing the machinery, the farmyard or the herd. We are not doing anything about it. The Minister of State is doing an excellent job in regard to horticulture but I do not hear any talk about land policy. Nobody wants to touch it but it is as important today as it was 20 or 30 years ago.

The question of a retirement scheme for farmers is being kicked around Europe. This is a matter which concerns people who left the land and whose bonds we are dealing with today. There is an obvious connection.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think it is beyond even the Deputy's ingenuity to relate that to the technicalities of this Bill.

Mr. Connaughton

It is important that a hash should not be made of this retirement scheme. There should be no ambiguity about who is entitled to get the money and there should not be an army of social welfare inspectors running around after them. The scheme must be clear and well defined, aimed specifically at retiring certain types of people.

Now that we are getting rid of land bonds, who will carry out the necessary research? There are not two civil servants who are thinking about a new land policy. It is incumbent on the Government in an agricultural country to ensure that we have a policy fit for the next century. There used to be people in the Department of Agriculture and Food involved in this work and now there are organisations like Teagasc. Every day people in the research station at Belclare which is outside Tuam carry out research which will be of benefit to people in rural Ireland in the future. However, all of a sudden we hear that that facility is to be closed. Members on the other side of the House seem to think that integrated rural development, the great white hope, is the answer to all problems. Even if £20 million, £25 million or £50 million was put into the north-west in the morning how could we be sure that this would be of benefit to the area in five to ten year's time? Yet the people who care about such matters and are paid to carry out research into such matters will be unemployed in a few weeks' time. The entire system is crazy.

Deputy Enright referred to the question of vesting. Who will carry out this job when the Land Commission is dissolved? This will affect everyone even though many people will not realise it until the Land Commission is gone. I want to refer to a case involving a young lad who got a site from his father to build a house. His father had got the land from the Land Commission ten or 15 years ago. There were some problems with a neighbour — I will not go into the details now — who got land but who was not registered. Because everyone has to be registered before vesting can take place, this young fellow, who has nothing to do with farming and never will have, cannot get a loan to build his house. In order to get a loan he has to have some sort of security and would have to have the deeds which he cannot now get. Obviously there are many aspects to this question.

The Bill before us today will not make much difference one way or the other as it is only enabling legislation. While the points Deputies have raised here today are of fundamental importance to rural Ireland, I am worried that not even one line of what we have said will appear in any of tomorrow's newspapers. This worries me greatly.

Mr. Deasy

It will be on "Oireachtas Report".

Mr. Connaughton

We can be thankful for "Oireachtas Report".

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I am sure The Western People will carry a report on it.

Mr. Connaughton

The Minister of State, the Minister and the Department have much ground to make up on the question of land use. I sincerely hope that the next time we have an opportunity of debating this matter in the House the Minister and those on the other side of the fence will have adopted a different attitude.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): My contribution will be brief. I should like to take the debate out of the west of Ireland arena and put on record the problems being experienced by small and poorer farmers in County Wexford and along the south-east coast. This Bill proposes the dissolution of the guarantee fund established under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, and the land bond fund established under the Land Act, 1923. I do not think too many farmers will be concerned about the dissolution of the land bond fund as, I think, many of them cursed the payments system. In many ways it was something of a lottery whether farmers got money for the land they gave to the Land Commission.

The last Coalition Government, of which Deputy Connaughton was a member, decided to abolish the Land Commission. I am not too upset about the abolition of the Land Commission. While they served their purpose, in many cases the price of land was too expensive. There was also a public perception that land was given to people on the basis of political allegiance. I think that politicans got more hassle and abuse over the alloction of lands by the Land Commission than they did in regard to any other issue.

Mr. Deasy

That was in the good old days and not in our time.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): There is no doubt that politicians lost the support of many farmers who did not get land. I had been a Member of this House for only a short time when a Land Commission farm in my area was divided up. Even though Fianna Fáil were not in Government at the time, for some unknown reason five or six Fianna Fáil farmers got the land. All hell broke loose because Fine Gael had not looked after their supporters. On other occasions it worked in reverse.

Mr. Hogan

It never worked in reverse.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I believe there was too much political patronage in the allocation of Land Commission land. There were queues at politicians' doors whenever Land Commission land became available. It was only when farmers got the land that they realised how expensive it was and many of them found it almost impossible to make the annual repayments.

The people I want to make a case for here today are farmers, particularly small family farmers, who got land from the Land Commission, have massive arrears and cannot meet their repayments. I welcome the setting up by the Minister of State, Deputy Kirk, of a working group to examine the question of annuities and the massive arrears accumulated by farmers. I hope they will report back as quickly as possible on how this problem can be resolved. At present many farmers particularly small family farmers cannot meet their repayments. As Deputy Connaughton said, repayments on land in County Wexford were as high as £180 per acre. There is no way small farmers can meet those high repayments. I do not know how the interest rates operated but they seemed to be based on the interest rate fixed by the banks at that time. During the seventies and early eighties when interest rates were high — they are probably still too high so far as we are concerned — farmers accumulated massive debts.

The Minister should examine the possibility of introducing an amnesty or write-off system for those farmers. Many farmers have told me that they would be prepared to make a once-off payment where the interest accumulated would be written off and the capital reduced to a reasonable amount. Some speakers have suggested the introduction of a system similar to the 1988 tenant purchase scheme while others have suggested the introduction of a substantial write-off system. Regardless of what type of system is introduced, it is important that it is done as quickly as possible.

Farmers are under severe pressure from the Land Commission to make their repayments and their sons and daughters have to leave the family farm because of this inability to pay. At a time when there is so much talk about the necessity to keep young people on family farms and the importance of family farms, it is essential that some scheme is introduced without delay. I ask the Minister to ensure that the working group report back as quickly as possible, taking into account the worthwhile views expressed by Members on both sides of the House. I hope that, unlike other committees who take ages to report back and whose reports are left lying on shelves for a number of years, this working group will put forward a solution to this problem which can be implemented speedily.

As regards a new land authority, I see a need for some type of system which would enable smaller farmers to acquire lands which come on the market. However, I am not sure whether as members of the EC we could establish a land authority or introduce a selective system which would enable smaller farmers to buy land. Perhaps the Minister would comment on this point. At present the land in County Wexford — and I think in most other counties — is being purchased by foreigners or big land owners or, as they are known in my constituency, cheque book farmers. There is no opportunity for the farmer with 30, 40 or 50 acres to increase his holding.

Perhaps the time has come for the Government to consider making low interest loans available through the banks to small farmers to enable them increase their holdings. Nowadays, it is said farmers must have a 70 or an 80 acre farm to be viable, yet small farmers are not in a position to purchase land because they are not able to compete on the open market. Will the Minister clarify whether we can have a land authority system within an EC context? I am not a farmer but I am aware that many of the decisions in relation to farming are taken in Brussels and not by the Government of the day. We need to ensure that the family type farmer here is protected in the future. It appears to me — I may be wrong — that there is an unofficial policy in Brussels and right down to the Department of Agriculture and Food and the coops to get rid of the small farmer because they are considered to be a burden when it comes to the collection of milk, grain and so on. The co-operatives say they want bulk collection of milk, grain and so on and want to bring 40 foot trucks into farmyards. If this system continues there will be little future for our small farmers. It is important that the Government and all politicians ensure there is a future for small family type farms.

I concur with the views of other Members in regard to headage payments. If arrears have accumulated in the Land Commission — obviously the Minister has recognised the problem by setting up a special committee — it is unfair that headage payments or grants are withheld because of that. I hope that will not continue and that farmers who depend on those payments will be paid on time in future. In many cases farmers must wait for these grants to pay for food for the house or for materials for the farm. I ask the Minister to re-examine that problem.

I urge the Minister to look again at the question of title within the Land Commission. Most weeks sons or daughters of people who acquired land from the Land Commission have problems if they wish to sell a site. Usually they find the title is not in order which results in delays in loan applications. As a result young people have to obtain bridging loans thus creating an unnecessary burden. A special section should be set up in the Department of Agriculture and Food to sort out title problems to ensure that delays do not occur. I ask the Minister to take on board the views put forward today and to arrive at a solution as quickly as possible particularly in regard to arrears of land annuities which is causing severe problems, particularly for small farmers.

Mr. Hogan

I welcome this Bill. In conjunction with the abolition of the Land Commission, which was signalled some years ago, this is a major tidying-up operation which has been long awaited. When we come to the stage where the Land Commission will be formally dissolved under the dissolution Bill I hope the Government will replace it with a modern land authority. There is a need for some statutory interventionist mechanism to regulate the sale of lands to ensure that the smaller land holder, who is under threat at present, and the medium commercial farmer, who is also under threat, have an opportunity to make their holdings viable and to ensure that most of our agricultural land remains in production rather than going to vested interests. It is regrettable that we do not have a land policy at present. I urge the Minister to take on board the views expressed today and devise a land policy discussion document so that we can come to grips with the need for regulation and give young farmers an opportunity to enter agriculture with confidence and maintain as many farm families on the land.

The compensation to estate owners in the form of land bonds has been disastrous financially and cumbersome in terms of administration. For that reason I welcome the Bill.

The most important section — this has been referred to by many speakers — is section 7 which gives the Minister power to waive payments in respect of certain annuities. The fact that the word "waive" is mentioned in the section clearly indicates that the Minister intends to waive payments. I welcome the fact that he has set up a working party to examine this matter and report as soon as possible. I understand about 14,000 farmers are in arrears in respect of land annuities at present.

The history of the allocation of land by the Land Commission has been politicised in the past. If one was not connected with the party in Government one could not hope to get a land allocation. I am glad that is no longer the case due to the decision to dissolve the Land Commission and wind up their operations. Many of us can recall instances where land was bought too dearly and was allocated to farmers who had certain projections in mind at the time of renting and acquiring which no longer stand up because of reductions in market supports from Europe and in prices being paid for traditional agricultural enterprises. I hope we can get away from land annuities building up because £160 to £180 an acre is being paid for land which is uneconomic. I hope a settlement can be arrived at which will be fair and equitable to the farmers who are in arrears and cannot make ends meet.

I ask the Minister to remember that farmers are paying their way in respect of land annuities and that they have a just case in seeking to be treated equitably in regard to arrears. I urge the Minister to find a solution which will be equitable to all sides. Some people, through great hardship, are paying their way and there are those who, through no fault of their own, found it exceedingly difficult to make their repayments to the Land Commission over the years. I regret to say that the sheriff is now calling to many farmers who are in arrears in respect of land annuities.

The Minister should use his good offices to ensure that this action is called off immediately pending the outcome of the negotiations and deliberations with the working party he set up to find an equitable solution to this problem.

A scheme similar to the tenant purchase scheme operated by the Department of the Environment has been suggested as one way of dealing with this problem. I welcome the Bill. It is urgent for thousands of farmers who are seeking an equitable solution. I look forward to the Irish Land Commission (Dissolution) Bill being brought before the House in the next session so that we can put all the affairs of the Land Commission and land bonds in order.

Mr. Leonard

This is technical legislation which is required as a consequence of a Government decision on land bonds. There will be no tears because of the disappearance of land bonds.

Debate adjourned.