Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 1 Jul 2005

Vol. 605 No. 6

Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill 2005 [Seanad]: Committee and Remaining Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

I appreciate my amendment was ruled out of order but I have a right to comment. I tabled the amendment in a great hurry and in circumstances which are now shown to have been unnecessary. The Minister of State said that the legal advice came in February or March. It is now the beginning of July and we only received the Bill yesterday. That shows the disregard and contempt this Government has for the working of the House. There was no reason the Bill could not have been circulated within a recognised period of ten working days, which is the established principle. I raised issues with regard to guardianship to which the Minister of State did not refer. I would have liked to come back with some sort of an amendment on that, but it was completely unrealistic to do so.

I want to put down a marker to the effect that this sort of practice shows contempt towards the House. Legal advice was received in February or March. Delays were caused by the Minister of State's inability to get his act together, publish the Bill and bring it to the House. It is a short technical Bill but we have not given due regard to the issue.

The spirit of my amendment was to speed up matters somewhat. I have spoken at length about the re-registration of children. Getting married is a life event and, for most people, a moment of great optimism. It should be a day of good memories. However, it is hard to imagine a place less suited to being a marriage venue than a health board office. There is no less inspired, more unromantic and less genial a place for the celebration of marriage, for which people plan and by which they set such store. Everything possible should be done to ensure that the facility provided for in the original 2003 Bill can be offered to those who want to avail of it.

Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question, "That the Bill do now pass", put and declared carried.

A message will be sent to the Seanad acquainting it of this accordingly.

Land Bill 2004 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution. I remember making a fairly detailed contribution in 1989 when the Land Commission Dissolution Bill was before the House. We were not restricted to 20 minutes then and I may have spoken for a somewhat longer time.

I did an in-depth study at that time on the Land Commission and what it meant to this country, how important it was to a large number of farming families and the very significant work it achieved from its establishment to its dissolution. The Land Commission had not acquired any land since 1983, but it served its purpose and then outlived it. When I was in the Department, I examined land policy of the time and produced a document, Towards a Sustainable Land Policy, which is probably somewhere in the archives. We considered the dissolution of the Land Commission, its replacement, whether there was a need for a land authority, as suggested at the time, and other initiatives which might be introduced to encourage the mobility of land, passing it from one generation to the next. We also investigated whether there were other initiatives which could be put in place to encourage the consolidation of land and enlarge holdings. Schemes such as early farm retirement and farm insulation served to encourage consolidation, enlargement and the transfer of land from one generation to the next. They have been very effective.

The Opposition at that time felt the Land Commission should be revived and restored, a view that was coming through across the country. I visited different parts of the country and people said that if Fianna Fáil was returned to power in 1997, one of its objectives would be to restore the Land Commission. However, that never happened. Dan McCarthy was a great campaigner in County Westmeath for the retention of the Land Commission. People will possibly call for its revival in this current debate. It served its purpose and was very effective but now we must examine other ways of encouraging land mobility.

I welcome the Bill because it provides an incentive to people to own their land, which is everyone's ambition. In some cases, people may find it difficult to buy out the land at this stage but the incentive in the legislation is very good. It is a pity, however, that it is not a 50% buy-out, to provide even more of an incentive but I am sure that even as it stand, there is a lot of interest in it. People seem to have more money these days, although that might not apply to the farming community as much as to those involved in building, industry and other areas of the economy.

At one time land was very important from a farming point of view. If a farmer got extra land from the Land Commission, it meant that he or she could increase the number of cattle on the farm and the capacity to grow crops. Now land is very important from a development point of view. Many farmers are making their living, sending their children to college and buying property elsewhere through the sale of land. They are selling off sites in rural areas and, even more so, sites close to urban areas. There is a new focus on land and its use.

As the Minister of State knows, the dairy industry is going through a very bad period and is not likely to recover to the level at which it operated in the past. Dairy farms will have to get bigger if they are to survive. At present, most dairy farmers operating under a 50,000 gallon quota are making just enough to pay for the running of the farm, not to glean an income or support a family. Therefore, farmers have to work part time and often their partners have to have permanent jobs.

The farming sector has changed totally. The level of income from farming has dropped drastically in recent years. The price of a gallon of milk, for example, is the same now as it was in 1978, while farm inflation has increased by approximately 500% in the same period. This is a very difficult time for farming and farmers. While the price of beef has improved to some extent, the outlook for beef farming is not good either. Survival will be challenging and difficult because after the next round of WTO talks there will be more beef from countries like Brazil, Argentina and third world countries on the Irish market, creating competition. Approximately nine out of every ten animals produced in this country are exported. Competition will increase in the market, particularly when Poland gets its act together because it has the capacity to produce considerably more dairy, livestock and grain products.

The farming market will become far more competitive in the future and it is important to refer to this in light of the Bill. When the Land Commission was established in 1881, the scenario was totally different. At that time, land was everything. It provided food and the only means for a family to make money, by selling produce. The situation today is different. Land is important now in terms of its value for development, through the selling of sites and so on.

The last buy-out deal in 1992 was at 50% and perhaps the Minister of State would consider increasing the buy-out terms in this Bill from 25% to 50%. That would provide more of an incentive to people. If the higher buy-out rate was offered, the uptake of the scheme would increase. The timescale for buy-out availability, at only six months from the enactment of the legislation, should be extended to a year. There should also be a comprehensive public information campaign launched to ensure that those people who are still paying annuities are aware of the buy-out scheme. I know of a person living in San Francisco who owned a farm near my home. That individual was not aware of the last buy-out scheme in 1992. He has bought out his annuity since then, but because he was living in the United States and letters did not reach him, he did not know about the scheme and as a result, could not avail of it. That is just one example and there may be many others. For that reason it is important that the Department tries to reach as many people as possible.

I welcome the proposal in the Bill that all low land annuities should be written off. However, Fine Gael had a briefing meeting with the IFA some time ago and that organisation suggested that the level of annuity to be written off should be increased from €200 to €400. I would suggest that an increase to €500 is appropriate and would benefit approximately 5,500 farmers. Given that there is a cost for collecting annuities, where they are very low a write-off makes sense as it will result in savings in administration, follow-up and so forth. Perhaps the Minister will refer to this issue in his reply, given that it was also raised by several other Deputies.

The IFA, in its discussions with my party, expressed concern that the Bill gives stronger rights to the Department of Agriculture and Food to withhold payments due to its members in lieu of land annuities owed. In other words, payments that would be due through the single payment scheme or REPS could be offset against land annuities or arrears. I ask the Minister of State to clarify this in his reply because the IFA argued that such action could create hardship in some cases, particularly for farmers in financial difficulties. Another suggestion from the IFA is that safeguards should be put in place to ensure that farmers who cannot avail of this buy-out scheme are given the opportunity to restructure their repayments so that they are in a better position to make annuity payments in the future.

The division of commonage is an important issue which poses some difficulties. I realise that the Land Commission was involved in facilitating the division of commonage, though I understand that only one or two of its officials are engaged in such activity at present. However, when the Land Commission is completely disbanded, there will be no other agency to facilitate such divisions and because of the celebrated Mayo High Court case, unless there is total agreement between all shareholders, then the commonage cannot be divided. If 15 people have rights on the commonage and one person objected to that, it could not be divided. Perhaps the Minister of State, when replying, will refer to this issue.

What will happen to lands that came under the responsibility of the Land Commission? Will they now come under the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Food? What body will have responsibility for managing turbary rights to land that will not be claimed by anyone? There is a major tidying up job to be done. What body will do that? There are also fishing and other rights. What process would be involved in tidying up the management of such rights? This Bill will go some way towards tidying up the annuity issue. What will happen to land that is not covered by land annuities, no man's land? Will the Minister of State refer to that?

The Land Commission built embankments along the coastline to protect some of the land it acquired. I am aware of a few in north Kerry where the Land Commission maintained the embankments. In some cases trusts were set up to maintain the embankments while in other cases they were not, but the Land Commission always maintained them. Now that the Land Commission has been dissolved there is no body responsible for what were its functions in this regard. I recall moving an amendment on Committee Stage of a Bill when the Minister, Deputy Cullen, had responsibility for the OPW. I asked him would the OPW take over responsibility for these embankments and he gave a commitment that it would, but that has not happened in many cases.

I could give the Minister of State details of some of the embankments of which I am aware. There is one on Carrig Island in Ballylongford where the sea has covered a huge area of land and there is another adjacent to it close to Mortara in Ballylongford. A landbank was acquired by IDA Ireland and land was acquired by the Land Commission at that location, but that is being eroded because no authority is maintaining that embankment, the work on which was of a high quality. Those are a few issues to which I would like the Minister of State to refer.

I welcome the fact that the Bill will facilitate the transfer of land used by sports clubs and community groups which currently operate Land Commission trust properties at the request of the trustees. It is proposed to simplify conveyancing procedures of trust properties to ease transfer of ownership by removing the legal and financial burdens from trustees. Approximately 500 of these local trusts are in existence, almost half of which are used by local GAA and other sports clubs. There are about 12 of them in north Kerry alone. I acknowledge the work of the Minister in ensuring that process will be regularised, and that is only right.

Apart from GAA clubs, the balance of trusts would be mainly turbary and cow park trusts established to provide some communal land for the keeping of animals by those in rural communities who did not own their own agricultural holdings. Deputy Johnny Brady referred to cow parks in particular. He has more experience of these in Meath than we have in Kerry. In Listowel there is the cows lawn where the people of the town could keep a cow long ago. This is still an open area. I am sure that probably the town park in Listowel is still governed under this scheme. There are open areas and cow parks, and, as Deputy Johnny Brady said, it is important that these are not sold off for building or other purposes by local authorities as they are a source of revenue. They should be kept as much as possible for the benefit of the people.

In the case of sporting trusts, because sporting organisations do not own the properties, they are reluctant to commit to significant development of their investments in trust properties. As a result many properties are not maximising their potential benefit to the community in which they are situated. These trusts have given rise to problems to some extent. They have helped to get around the issue of national lottery funding. These trusts have not created much difficulty but in some instances it has been awkward for clubs to draw down national lottery funding because of their existence and in some cases because the clubs did not have a record of the trust and the original members of it who may have since died. This has created difficulties for some clubs.

I welcome the Bill. I hope that there will be a significant take-up of this offer. The Minister of State on Committee Stage should consider increasing the percentage from 25% to 50%, if possible, which would create a greater incentive to take up the offer. It would be preferable for the Minister of State to get rid of these annuities, if possible, once and for all and to clean up this area. I thank him for his attention.

I have downloaded many speeches on this issue and the Minister of State will be pleased to note that I read them all fully. Coming from the east coast, we do not have a particular knowledge of the Land Commission. Much of its work was historical and was well done. In its day it was an important agent for social change and it met the needs of a land-hungry community. It met the needs of a poor peasantry who in many cases could not maintain their families on the landholding that they may temporarily have held. They always cast their eyes on the land beside them which was owned by the big landlord who was not to be found and spent his time in other places and other climates. The Land Commission, historically, did an important job in breaking up those large estates and giving to the farmers and the people of that area land they needed and that they had utilised well.

I do not know if there is a social history of the Land Commission and, if so, if it has been published. However, if this is the final act of the Land Commission, which I believe it is, we should mark it with publication of research and documents associated with it. I am interested in history and when reading about it one notes that some Departments have produced a set of historical documents which could be used in the junior certificate history curriculum, for general knowledge or in the curriculum for transition year students. Perhaps the Minister of State's Department will consider compiling historical documents in the Department's archives that might be of interest to students, particularly some of the more controversial parts of the Land Commission's activities. While those battles happened long ago they would give an important understanding of the history of the period, particularly how communities dealt with these issues in the past.

I would like to refer to another matter of which I know a little, namely, the policy of the Land Commission, particularly in counties like Meath, where people were resettled from the west and the Kerry Gaeltacht, and established new Gaeltachtaí in Rathcairn, Gibbstown and so on. As an exercise in social engineering, it has been particularly successful. Many families moved from west Kerry, from where some of my ancestors came, and settled in Meath, and are very happy there. That represented an important development of Gaeltacht communities and the Land Commission played an important part in that.

Another issue concerns something that may be better understood by the Minister of State, as someone who comes from a rural community. In parts of the country, for example, west Kerry where I spend my holidays, this problem has arisen where farmers exchange land. It apparently dates back to the 1920s or 1930s. Let us say a farmer had a patch of land. The Land Commission looked at the layout of the land and to facilitate farmers working land adjacent to their dwellings, lands were exchanged between neighbours. I believe the practice was called patching. I am not sure whether that is a word with which the Minister of State is familiar.

Notwithstanding the fact that their legal landholdings were given to them by the Land Commission, farmers continued to farm the historical land that they always held. The result was that when somebody died, occasionally farmers found the land they thought they owned was not theirs. It could have belonged to a neighbour who now wanted it back. Such arrangements created all manner of hassle. Perhaps the Minister of State might refer to that in his final speech because I fail to understand it.

Another issue is that in some parts of the country the clarity of land ownership or land title is somewhat unclear. When someone seeks planning permission on a plot of land, it may emerge that he or she owns the plot but not the access to it. I know of one such beautiful site in Kerry which, if it were sold on the open market, would be worth at least €100,000, but because of all the legal complications nobody can go in there unless the person who wants to build the house and the other person who owns the right of way agree. Needless to say they will not agree, so nobody can go in. It means the view is retained for posterity. This is an example of what can happen.

Land has historically been close to the Irish question and how people in Ireland feel about their society. Initially, the Land Commission brought about an equalisation of opportunity. It gave people the opportunity to buy and farm land near them and it also assisted in the break-up of large estates in a fair manner. I know there were complaints at times and some strife, but on the whole it was fair. Working for the Land Commission was a good job. When I was growing up my father might indicate some individual and say that he worked for the Land Commission. It was almost as good a job as being a TD or probably better because there was more continuity. They seemed to be there forever and were powerful and influential people in their communities, to whom one might lift the hat, perhaps, if one were wearing one.

We are a long way from 1881, the year the Land Commission was set up. There is now a hunger for housing as opposed to land. Some issues about land ought to be addressed by this Government. Mention is often made of the Kenny report on building land and so on. It is a real issue that the value of land, depending on where one lives, can vary enormously. The Taoiseach has said that the constitutional review group report on land will be coming before the House in due course. I do not know whether that will be part of the Minister of State's brief. However, it is very important.

The price of building land in particular, is a significant issue. I would like to see addressed the hunger that exists among young people who want to live in their communities adjacent to their families. Deputy O'Donovan is chairman of the relevant committee and I would like to see that report brought into the House for discussion. Perhaps the Minister of State might have the pleasure of introducing that non-controversial Bill which will allow people to buy homes in their own area.

I have read the speech. Much of it is very technical and legal. In essence the Government is tidying up the affairs of the Land Commission, as the Minister of State has indicated. Its passing, I hope, will be recorded by some publication or some function or other. The benefits from the Land Commission will be more greatly appreciated as time goes on and the commitments that civil servants gave to it in past generations become clearer. It was very controversial initially and was a core issue for the people. Its affairs have been handled very well and successfully. Communities will continue to benefit from its work, particularly the farming community. I understand that the Bill provides for the waiving of certain charges owed by farmers and landowners and a certain amount is being written off. Further options are also being offered as regards different moneys that are owed.

The issue concerning sport and community trustee land was referred to by my colleague, Deputy Deenihan, when he spoke about the transfer of land the Bill will facilitate. It will facilitate, at the request of the trustees, the transfer of lands used by sports clubs and community groups which currently operate on Land Commission trust property. The Minister of State proposes to simplify the conveyancing procedures of trust properties to ease transfer of ownership by removing the legal and financial burdens from trustees. Approximately 500 of these local trusts exist, almost half of which are used by local GAA and other sports clubs. It is important that these clubs and communities should be given security of tenure.

There is an issue in this regard to which I should like to refer. It concerns land in Drogheda owned by the local authority which was given to a sports club which continued to use it over the years. However, the ownership changed and because of development pressures, the sports club received an offer for the land from a builder. It sold the land to the developer for a certain amount of money and out of that it is buying ten or more times the size of acreage much further out from the town. Drogheda has lost a greenfield site of about two acres which has been in the centre of the town. The new sports complex, which will be much further out, will be very successful and will meet the needs of the modern growing town and society. However, the fact that the green space is lost forever is a significant issue.

Whether one is for or against sport, one wants it to develop. If the effect of this Bill is to transfer forever rights over that field as a green space, it should remain in recreational usage as at present and should not be allowed to be sold for development. There are significant pressures on those types of sites and cases for or against can be made. Ultimately, it is very important to retain our green spaces. Many of these are being used by GAA and other sports clubs and are owned by the Land Commission. The Minister of State should examine that issue seriously and some type of legal codicil should be inserted in leases to ensure that such land remain the property of such sporting bodies so long as it continues to be used for existing purposes, subject to the position being reviewed by ministerial order in particular circumstances.

I thank the Minister of State and wish him success with the legislation.

My family was one of the beneficiaries referred to in the Bill as they received a Land Commission land transfer to which the Bill applies. I should therefore perhaps declare an interest in this matter.

I had dealings on behalf of constituents in this area during the 1980s and 1990s when interest rates were high and some small landholders had received additional plots of land from the Land Commission. This caused them great difficulties as it entailed heavy repayments relative to the income generated from agriculture at that time. Because of some of the conditions under which the land was awarded, it was not always easy for them to realise their assets.

A previous easement scheme afforded the opportunity of buy-out but like many schemes it was a long time coming and then was rushed. This Bill has been a long time in preparation but I hope its impact will be to deal as comprehensively as possible with the entire issue.

This is the era of low interest rates which means that property values have risen. Property prices do not remain static but fluctuate like interest rates. It is better to invest in property of some description than deposit money in a financial institution to earn an interest rate of 1.5%. The future use of land and land speculation must be considered. The EU bureaucrats may ensure there will be very little productive land left in Ireland and the country will be some kind of a national park. One cannot make an economic living in a national park. I once attended a funeral where an American commented on the green scenery to a local who replied that it was a shame the scenery could not be eaten.

I agree the consumer must be serviced and that it is no longer economical to produce food. If that philosophy is followed, the inevitable will happen and people will not remain in the productive agricultural sector but will seek employment elsewhere where there are better pay and conditions. This would be a disaster for the food sector but the trend is already apparent. There has been an increase in the amount of food imported from non-EU member states, food which is often relabelled as being produced in the EU. This will have a serious impact on the agricultural sector which will become debilitated and we will become reliant on overseas produce. Problems will arise in this case when the French or Liverpool dockers go on strike, for instance. We will then regret our neglect of consideration of land use.

I suggest agricultural practices can move with the times, adopt new technology and stay competitive. However, competing with the massive factory farms in Ecuador, Brazil and Argentina is not an even match. It will be said that the European Union is a wealthy community and that it is unfair to its competitors. It would be a pity to allow ourselves be lulled into a false sense of security arising from this notion. We could discover we are no longer masters of our own destiny at a time when international interest rates might increase dramatically. We could lose control of the production of food with an inability to supply the home market or any other market. Over 90% of produce grown and produced in this country is exported.

Tony Blair has expressed his view on the future development of Europe. Ireland must strive to make its mark to influence the development of the future of Europe because the alternative is not to be recommended.

It is important to ensure agricultural land is passed on as easily as possible to the younger generation and without impediment or burdens. The numbers availing of the farm retirement scheme are currently in their thousands but to date only 600 have been processed. I asked a parliamentary question on this matter recently. I suggest the Minister investigate the situation with alacrity.

This information presumes the parliamentary question was correctly answered because the correct information is not always available to this side of the House. There was a time when if the information in a parliamentary question was not accurate, the Minister offered an immediate explanation. The Bill could affect the mobility of land transfer, depending on whether people are in a position to buy out the annuity. It is essential that this factor is accommodated as we must keep in mind the basic purpose of agricultural land.

A balance must be found between protecting the environment and ensuring the viability of enterprises on the land. The long-standing practice of removing all hedgerows providing shelter for flora and fauna was crazy and reflected the prevailing but mistaken wisdom in the Department of Agriculture at the time. Another mistaken concept, that to achieve a correct ecological balance all drainage should cease, is beginning to emerge. Drainage is an important part of the landscape but there are those who believe that allowing plains to flood will create some kind of utopia. Nature does not work this way. Plains have flooded to a greater or lesser extent from the beginning of time. Some parts of Ireland and other European countries would be permanently under water if drainage schemes had not been introduced over the years. Without dwelling on the details, some developing schools of thought take issue with the need for drainage. Their proponents have no practical experience and rely on second hand information but because the idea sounds good, they believe it should be promoted.

The landmass, like the economy, must be managed in a balanced manner. We must not allow our rivers and streams to choke up with debris because someone believes it would be a great idea to have a flood. Invariably, the result of this approach is that one becomes concerned with drainage when a real flood occurs, in other words, when it is too late.

Deputies have few opportunities to discuss the issue of agricultural land. I also wanted to discuss forestry use. Forests must be carefully managed. It is foolish to have valuable, fertile agricultural land in certain areas covered by trees when less viable land used for arable use is suitable for forestry.

I support the Bill and hope it will be of benefit to those for whom it is intended. It will tidy up a number of loose ends that have been lying around for a few years and will, I hope, facilitate those who intend to pass on their property to the next generation.

I thank all Deputies who contributed on the new Land Bill. It is heartening to hear that agriculture is still of major interest and considered to be of high importance and value to the country as a whole. As Deputy Durkan stated, the measures contained in the Bill will benefit many, including farmers, sporting organisations and ultimately the taxpayer.

Almost two thirds of all land annuities, which are no longer economically viable to collect, will be written off. In 1989, the Government of the day wrote off all annuities of less than £10. In 1992, another write-off was introduced for all annuities of less than £20. This final write-off should be seen in the context of what has already been granted and balanced against the legitimate concerns of the taxpayer who would regard further concessions, as requested by a number of Deputies, as inequitable. In the €200 to €500 category some of the annuitants have not paid annuities for many years and have current arrears of up to €5,000, in addition to the outstanding capital. The cut-off point of €200 per annum for a write-off is fair and realistic.

A discount redemption of 25% will be on offer for a limited period as a further inducement to farmers to buy out their land annuities. Despite the introduction of a 50% buy-out scheme and review of repayments in 1992, significant arrears still exist. My Department has not imposed additional interest for late payment of annuities. It would be inequitable for the State and taxpayers in general to go beyond a discount buy-out offer of 25%, which would only benefit those who have failed to maintain their obligations over a long period.

The Bill will introduce a simpler means to collect arrears of land annuities. A far more simple and cost effective means for trustees of former Land Commission land will be established to enable the transfer of such property to the mainly sporting organisations which use it. The obligation to obtain sub-division consent from my Department will be removed, apart from those with annuities. Furthermore, the obligation on people from countries outside the European Union to obtain departmental approval prior to purchasing agricultural land will no longer be necessary.

I noted the remarks made by Deputies and will take a minute or two to address some of the concerns expressed. To increase the write-off to annuities under €500 per annum would cost the Exchequer a sum of €9.6 million or an additional sum of €5.7 million over the figure of €3.9 million, which relates to annuities up to €200 per annum. It would benefit an additional 1,000 farmers. This would be an unacceptable additional cost. Deputies must remember the many thousands of farmers who have paid their annuities down the years. It would be unfair to them if those who did not make any meaningful attempt to pay were now rewarded.

As Deputies have stated, the justification for writing off the annuities up to €200 per annum is mainly due to the fact that the cost of the write-off will be offset by staff savings over a number of years. I do not intend to re-examine the write-off threshold of €200 per annum, as provided for in the Bill.

The collection method utilised by collection staff in Castlebar is largely computerised and not manual, as stated by Deputies. The intended period of six months for operation of the scheme is more than adequate. The Bill was published in July 2004 and introduced in the Seanad in October 2004. Already, a period of 11 months has been available to annuitants who will qualify for the discounted buy-out to regularise their titles. These annuitants do not need to wait until the Bill is enacted to check that their title is in order or approach their financial institution about raising finance to participate in the buy-out. By the time the scheme is introduced and finalised, much more than one year will have passed since the Bill was published. All annuitants over €200 per annum should take immediate steps to organise their affairs.

Deputies have asked me to increase the discount from 25% to 50%. The 25% discount to the 2,300 annuitants affected will cost the Exchequer approximately €4.7 million. The 2,300 annuitants in question have current arrears of €4.1 million. If all arrears were paid off, it would almost cover the cost of the 25% discount. If the 25% were to be increased to 50% as requested by some Deputies, it would cost the Exchequer another £4.1 million. Those being offered the proposed 25% discount were offered a previous discount in 1993 and did not take it up. They are being offered a second bite at the cherry in the space of more than ten years. I do not intend to increase the discounted buy-out figure from the level set out in the Bill.

My Department has not used debt collectors for the purpose of collecting annuity arrears since early 2002. The collectors used generated a payment of €400,000 to the Department in respect of arrears. The fee charged by them was 8.5%, not 20% as claimed by Deputies. I decided it was better and more favourable to farmers to introduce another discounted buy-out scheme, rather than continue with debt collectors as a means of extinguishing land purchase annuities and any arrears. Deputies have stated that annuity rates of 18% are currently being charged by my Department. This is not the case and no current annuity interest rate exceeds 10.3%. In 1993, all interest rates over 10.3% were reduced to this more favourable rate for all annuity payments. Current mortgage and loan rates are favourable and it is likely annuity holders can avail of a loan rate lower than their annuity rate and thereby participate in the buy-out scheme. The scheme, however, is voluntary and some may not wish to participate or may be unable to participate in it.

I do not intend to extend the proposed discount of 25% to cover arrears and arrears will have to be paid off. Deputies have referred to the additional collection powers which will be available to me after the Bill is enacted. The powers contained in the Bill ensure that farmers who retain their annuity maintain payments thereafter. For too long annuitants at the top end have neglected to make any payments to the Department and I have an obligation to the Exchequer to ensure that ongoing financial obligations are met. I have already given a commitment in the Seanad that before set-off powers are utilised, there will be a full discussion with any annuitant in arrears to ascertain his or her exact financial position and to determine what, if anything, might be set off from payments to be received by that annuitant in respect of the discharge of arrears. Any payment due to an annuitant by my Department will be subject to the additional collection powers. If all annuitants over €200 per year took up the scheme on offer, there would be no need for collection powers to be utilised.

I do not intend to introduce specific consultation provisions into the legislation because they are not warranted. The powers set out in section 6 of the Bill do not place my Department in a better position than any other creditor. It will be necessary for an application to be made to the appropriate court of competent jurisdiction to obtain relief, for example, a garnishee order, as provided for in the section. My Department is unable to seek direct payment from third parties who might owe money to an annuitant without first making an application to a court.

As far as the sporting trusts are concerned, the current trustees will decide to pass their interest to the user clubs to maintain such sporting trusts in perpetuity. As for the other trusts, cow park and turbary, it has been the practice for the trustees who own this land, but subject to the specific trust, to transfer it to either local authorities or local development community companies. This enables a local community interest to be maintained and enjoyed into the future. It was never the intention that cow parks that were no longer being used for their intended purpose and were transferred to county councils would be sold off by councils to the highest bidder. In future, before a cow park is transferred to a county council, a specific commitment will be obtained from that council that the land will be used for sporting, recreational or other purposes for the benefit of the local community and will not be sold on to generate income for the council. In fairness to councils, in many cases the councils were themselves the trustee and maintained and protected the cow parks down the years.

The Department can apply conditions if it wishes when lands are being transferred but policing them would be difficult and we would lose our powers once the land is transferred. Embankments are not owned by the Land Commission or the Department of Agriculture and Food. Maintenance was never a duty of the Land Commission even though some of it was carried out on an ex gratia basis. Trust funds were set up for some embankments and these funds are now kept by the public trustee, an officer of the Department of Agriculture and Food. Turbary owned by the Land Commission has been owned by the Minister for Agriculture and Food since the 1992 dissolution Act.

I thank all Deputies who contributed and appreciate their support for the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share