Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 25 Apr 1975

Vol. 80 No. 6

Land Bond Bill, 1975 ( Certified Money Bill ): Second Stage.

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

Minister for Lands (Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick,

Cavan): In commending this short Bill to the House I must emphasise that it is purely an enabling measure. The amount of bonds created to date under all Land Bond Orders since 1934 is £40 million which is the limit set out in section 1 of the Land Bond Act, 1969. The purpose of the Bill is to raise this limit to £60 million. This does not mean that additional land bonds to the amount of £20 million will inevitably be created, but it does mean that statutory authority will be available to create such quantity of land bonds as may be found to be required.

My own attitude to land bonds is well known. I would be happy to be rid of them and my intention is to phase them out as rapidly as the resources of the Exchequer permit. And let me add that since I became Minister for Lands good progress has been made in providing cash for the Land Commission to buy land. In the 21 months to 31st, December, 1974, the Land Commission had £3.25 million to spend on the purchase of land for cash, while all that could be provided for them in the more than five times as long preceding period of nine years was £2.8 million. In point of fact, in this year alone the Land Commission have over £3.8 million cash to buy land plus an additional £490,000 to pay premiums and pensions to farmers availing of the retirement scheme.

This latter scheme is proving very successful and since its introduction in May last price agreement has been reached for sales in 90 cases providing a land intake of almost 3,400 acres. I need hardly remind Senators that there is no question of land bonds in cases dealt with under the retirement scheme. The scheme will figure prominently in the future activities of the Land Commission and will have a twofold effect. Not only will it contribute to the pool of land required for land settlement but, since it is financed entirely in cash, it will also assist in the progressive phasing out of land bonds as a medium of payment for lands acquired.

"Progressive" is the key word in what I have been saying. If the Exchequer position allowed it, we could get rid of the land bond system right away. Unfortunately we are not in that happy position and all we can do is allocate as much cash for land purchase as is possible, bearing in mind the other calls on the resources of the Exchequer. As I have demonstrated, there has been an enormous increase in the amount provided for that purpose since this Government took office and it is my ambition to secure the provision of even larger allocations in the years ahead.

Meanwhile we must be realistic. It has not yet been possible to make available in any one year the amount of cash required to finance the entire programme of the Land Commission for that year. In these circumstances, continued recourse must be had to land bonds in an effort to assist the 46,000 or so small farmers who are desperately in need of more land to make their holdings viable.

I am not known to be a devotee of land bonds; very few people are. But we must continue to use them, for the present, at any rate, and I have endeavoured to ensure that they will be as attractive as possible to those who receive them. The present issue bears interest at the rate of 16 per cent per annum and the sinking fund so operates that the bonds will be redeemed in 27 years. These are the highest interest rate and the shortest redemption period applicable to any series of land bonds since the inception of the system under the 1923 Land Act. And, of course, bonds are also liable to be drawn for redemption at per in one of the periodic drawings which takes place according as the sinking fund accumulates.

Quite an amount of the lands acquired by the Land Commission is owned by non-farmers who originally bought them as a speculative investment and who can make a handsome profit on their disposal. I think Senators will agree that in receiving payment in 16 per cent land bonds these people are doing quite well. Even if cash were freely available its use could scarcely be justified in such cases.

It is both imperative and urgent that statutory authority should be provided for the creation of additional land bonds so that there may be no hold up in the land settlement programme. I am sure there can be no general intention to deprive uneconomic holders of the opportunity to secure enlargements through the operations of the Land Commission. In these circumstances, I would ask Senators to give this Bill an expeditious passage as was the case with the two similar Bills in 1969 and 1964.

Mr. Keegan

This Bill is rendered necessary because of the inflationary situation in which we live and because of the depreciation of money values from day to day and from year to year. This Bill is also necessary because of the EEC directive re the farm retirement scheme. Almost everybody in Ireland has some knowledge of land bonds. It has been the topic of conversation at the firesides of the homes of rural Ireland and at meetings held throughout the country. It is the natural ambition of everyone to own land. Nothing generates more activity in any area than the acquisition by the Land Commission of an estate which at some time will be divided among the uneconomic holders of an area.

Land bonds were established as a means of acquiring a pool of land for redistribution and of enabling the Land Commission to function as they were expected to function, namely, to acquire land and have it distributed among the smallholders. When they were established money had some real purchasing value. Those land bonds were regarded as being something worthwhile then. But, as money continued to depreciate in value and as the rate of inflation continued to soar, they lost their attractiveness with the result that the Land Commission over the years have had great difficulty in acquiring lands and paying for them on the land bond system.

Many suggestions were made as to the alternatives. In my opinion there could be an alternative to the land bond system. Many years ago efforts should have been made to provide a land bank whereby the small farmers would have resources to draw upon to enable them to buy additional pieces of land for themselves or to co-operate with their neighbours in acquiring larger tracts of land. That might be saying that we were trying to by-pass the Land Commission and their activities, but I think that land distributed by the Land Commission is another form of hire purchase. It is like the private individual who goes out and buys some commodity, a household item or a piece of machinery or equipment on the hire purchase system.

The Land Commission may have bought the land through the land bond system and the recipient of that piece of land is expected to pay on a rental system over the years. If he had access to money in the initial stages he could have bought the land himself at a cheaper rate, because we all know of the high administration costs which are involved in the activities of the Land Commission and we know that down along the line somebody must pay for all the administrative activities and work which is involved in running the Land Commission.

Slightly off the record I should like to see some Minister at some time deciding to give more power to the local field officers in the various districts throughout the country. Local Land Commission offices cover two or three counties and their work is really only field work. They should be given more authority. They should be given a greater say in the administration of the activities of the Land Commission because this would help to speed up land distribution. There is nothing more frustrating to smallholders than to see large estates without any sign of the Land Commission dividing them among the smallholders in the area.

It has been stated that the Land Commission use the method as a means of providing additional capital obtained from rents collected from the lettings each year. It has also been alleged that those lettings enable the Land Commission to give the land out at lower rents. I do not know to what extent that applies to the fixing of rents but I and every other Member know there is a hue and cry to have land divided quickly. Therefore, the people look to the Land Commission for a service. They look to them to secure additional parcels of land, thereby making their holdings more economic and ensuring that those people have an opportunity of working and living on the land, as is their right.

With regard to old land bonds, the Minister could make some effort to bring them up-to-date and put them on a par with the new bonds he is issuing at the present time. After all, 16 per cent is an attractive interest rate and it should not be scoffed at. The real problem lies in the method of acquiring land, the length of time it takes to process an acquisition and the inconvenience that can be caused to some people especially where a farm has been sold. Then, the Land Commission enter upon the lands and decide to institute compulsory acquisition.

I will give an example of an instance where somebody decides to sell a farm of land and succeeds in securing a purchaser through advertising the lands in the local papers and selling it through an auctioneer. The purchaser pays a deposit on the lands and auctioneer's fees. Then local pressures start moving. Pressure is brought to bear on the Land Commission to acquire those lands. Possibly after 21 or 18 months they decide to proceed with compulsory acquisition. When the Land Commission decide to institute compulsory acquisition the purchaser is refunded his deposit but the auctioneer maintains that by law he is entitled to hold the auctioneer's fees. I know of one case recently where a thrifty man bought an additional tract of land. He paid the deposit and £1,100 auctioneer's fees. He was refunded the deposit but was not refunded the auctioneer's fees, and, therefore, that man is £1,100 poorer because he was thrifty and credit-worthy in the eyes of the bank manager.

That is something that the Minister could look into. I feel that an injustice has been done in cases like this. There have been many of them throughout the country. It is one area where the Land Commission would need to liberalise their activities because in order to please one or two people you are probably going to inconvenience other people. It is something that needs to be put right sooner or later—in fact, sooner than later.

Another reason the Land Commission decide to acquire land, or the reasons they advance as to why they should acquire certain tracts of land, is because it has been let over the years and it is regarded as being land that should be acquired. The people who have let most land over the years in this country are not the farmers but the Land Commission. They acquire land because the farmer has it let over a period of years, and they continue to relet that land over and over again. To me that just does not make sense. A small or medium-sized farmer may be in financial difficulties, he may be a bachelor, and he may let the land. The Land Commission step in, acquire this land and they continue to let it on and on and on. There is no obligation on them other than to continue letting this land. I cannot see justice in the Land Commission acquiring lands and then continuing with the old system of letting year after year.

Sooner or later consideration must be given to the setting up of a land bank to enable small farmers to join together and purchase land. This would be to everybody's advantage. The land could be purchased on the open market, within limits. I am not suggesting that money should be made available which would result is greatly inflated land prices. However, money should be made available, at a low interest rate, to give farmers longterm loans which would enable them to redeem their holding and develop their interest in securing land in such a manner.

I am not suggesting that these changes should be made overnight. I fully realise the difficulties involved— the amount of staff required, how unwieldy the entire system is, the size of the Twenty-six Counties and the amount of communication necessary between the various parts of the country and the head office in Dublin. That is why I stress again the need for the decentralisation of the Land Commission and the Department of Lands. It must be proceeded with as quickly as possible.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid the Senator is widening the scope of the Bill. This is not a debate on the operation of the Land Commission.

Mr. Keegan

I should like to draw the Cathaoirleach's attention to the Dáil debates. The Ceann Comhairle allowed a slight deviation on the Land Bond Bill debate.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the Senator suggesting that his deviations to date have been slight.

Mr. Keegan

Land bonds are a necessary stop-gap measure to enable, as the Minister said, the Land Commission to continue acquiring land. I welcome the Minister's remarks with regard to the EEC directive which makes it possible for the Land Commission to acquire land for redistribution under the farm modernisation scheme. Anybody who applies under this scheme for additional land can only acquire it if it has been surrendered under the EEC directive. I do not know if this scheme could be made more flexible but anyway it is a satisfactory scheme. It is one of the few good schemes we have got from Brussels. It has got off to a reasonably good start and will work well over the years. The reason for its success is that it provides for landowners to retire with a reasonable degree of comfort. I should like some clarification from the Minister on the type of landowner who will qualify for such holdings surrendered to the Land Commission under the farm retirement scheme. I should like to see some positive steps being taken by the Land Commission to ensure that tracts of land will be allocated speedily to farmers who have applied for assistance under the farm modernisation scheme. It is a scheme which merits support.

There is not much else to say in connection with the land bond issue except that at the moment it is the only system we have of financing the activities of the Land Commission. With decentralisation in mind some new thinking must be done in relation to the method of financing the activities of the Land Commission.

I stress again the need for the establishment of a land bank for farmers. Even though farming may have its ups and downs I have yet to meet a farmer who is not interested in acquiring more land. The Land Commission were established to assist farmers in their different needs. The Land Commission, as they acquire more land through the land bond system, should give more consideration to the small farmer who must have another job in order to support his wife and family.

Mr. O'Toole

I welcome this Bill because it provides an extra £20 million for the land bond scheme. The raising of the limit to £60 million is significant, especially in present circumstances. The Minister must be complimented on being able to come to the Seanad and announce that this extra money is available.

As the Minister has said, everybody is well aware of his attitude to the land bond system. All Senators will agree that the system has its drawbacks. It may even seem to be unfair in certain circumstances but bearing in mind our current economic position and the many factors which affect land acquisition it is the only system which can be worked reasonably. Until such time as money is made available for the cash purchase of land we must rely solely on the land bond system.

The Minister has stated that since he assumed office he has made available a sum of £3¼ million, five times the amount made available by his predecessor in one year. This is obviously a declaration of intent on the part of the Minister to get away from the sole dependence on land bonds. This attitude of the Minister's is to be welcomed.

Senator Keegan mentioned that the necessity for this Bill was brought about by the retirement scheme. I do not think the retirement scheme necessitated the introduction of this Bill. The Minister and the Department must be complimented on the speed and the value of land provided by his Department on foot of this valuable scheme. They had 90 cases in one year. This is a substantial number when one considers the trepidation and the apprehension with which farmers in general look on any scheme which results in taking land from them, be it for a short term or a long term. We all have a very strong emotional attachment to land. This is so because of historic reasons and it will continue for many years to come. The volume of land acquired under the scheme and the number of farmers prepared to partake in it is a tribute to the public relations of the Department and, indeed, to the good sense of the farmers who opted into the scheme.

We all know there is great delay in the acquisition of land and in the redistribution of acquired land. This has been the case for many years and, speaking of my own area, from discussions with officials I understand they have not got sufficient staff to cope with the volume of work facing them. When one considers that there are approximately 46,000 smallholders who are crying out for additional land is it any wonder that delays take place because of investigations and reinvestigations?

I may say that we, as Members of the Oireachtas, are responsible in no small way for causing those delays because we all know when the Land Commission acquire a tract of land in an area some local farmers who feel they have a right to some of this land come to Members of this House and to Members of the Dáil seeking representations on their behalf to the Minister and to his Department and that results in reinvestigation and files being sent back and forth which results in considerable delay. This is the democratic way in which the system is applied but it seems to make more work for us and for others involved in the scheme.

There is an illusion abroad concerning lettings by the Land Commission. There is a general idea that the Land Commission are doing very well in their lettings and that that is why they do not distribute land for many years after acquisition. Any official of the Department of Lands will tell you that on approximately 80 to 90 per cent of their lettings they are losing money because the amount of money they receive from lettings does not even cover the cost of servicing the loan originally needed to purchase these lands. The public should be made aware of this because, as I said, the idea is abroad that the Department of Lands are deliberately delaying redistributions because of the income from sublettings.

The Minister is to be complimented on his efforts in trying to eliminate land bonds and, please God, in the not too distant future, if he continues in his present approach, we will see the day when the land bond system will be replaced by a much more equitable practice.

Mr. Dolan

I agree with the Minister that it is necessary to find extra money. Land bonds have been a problem for many years and many people, especially in rural Ireland, had no idea what bonds meant. They were accustomed to dealing in ready cash and dealing in land bonds presented a problem to them over the years. There is an element of gambling in it it is like trafficking in shares. Rural people find it difficult to gather money together and they are reluctant to take chances with it or to take shares in any project, even though they might receive good advice on it. That reluctance is there because in the past they have seen the value of shares and bonds crush all around them. Many people in rural Ireland were ruined because of the collapse of companies and often their life savings were swept away overnight. Consequently, the quicker this matter of paying for land by bonds is phased out the better it will be. I am in complete agreement with the Minister when he says this is his objective, provided he is able to get the necessary money.

When this Government took office and the various Ministries were being allocated, there seemed to be a tendency on the part of the various media to downgrade the Department of Lands. Perhaps it was because the former holder of office, Deputy Séan Flanagan, wisely said at one time, that that Department should be abolished but I think he meant that the Department of Lands and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries should be amalgamated because they have a lot in common. I would not suggest that the post of Minister for Lands is not equally as important as any other Ministry. Land has been the food of revolutions all through the years.

The Minister is fully conversant with all the problems and he is doing an excellent job, and irrespective of what the media say I would advise him to push ahead as vigorously as he possibly can to try to secure the funds which will eventually remove from us, if at all possible, this method of paying the farmer for land in the form of land bonds.

I notice that he has reduced years of redemption to 27 but that is a long time in the life of a farmer, especially a middle-aged or elderly farmer who would be selling his land. Often in my own area when people realised they would be paid in land bonds they immediately refused to sell at all. This is an unsatisfactory position because there are approximately 60,000 people looking for additional land and if a large estate is up for sale and if the person selling is reluctant to accept land bonds, it is bad for the congests in the area because some wealthy person will come in and purchase this land outright.

I do not suggest that the Land Commission should be used to push up the value of a farm in any area. They have a tremendous part to play in the resettlement and keeping of as many families as possible on the land in rural Ireland. This is of vital importance. Nobody would like to see a rush into the Mansholt Plan in one form or another—a plan which would eventually create larger estates and drive the rural people into towns or built-up areas. In the country they have their own houses, schools, and churches and it would be wrong for the Department of Lands or any other Department to create a situation which would encourage the people to leave the land. It is very frustrating for small farmers to learn that they are not able to get the little extra land needed to give them an economic holding.

I appreciate the Minister's difficulty because there are over 6,000 farmers looking for land. In the past, and probably at present, too many small farmers rush to sell their land secretly to the Forestry Division. I know this has happened in many cases. The Forestry Division are doing a laudable job. If this mad rush for land continues it will gobble up the small farms and create vast forests all over the country for tourists to take pleasure in and, at the same time depriving the small farmer of the land to make his holding economic.

I have known of cases where land was being sold to the Forestry Division and the adjoining farmer wanted a few fields. This, of course, would never be considered by the Forestry Division. But, they wanted all or nothing. They used pincer tactics, especially in the mountain and rural areas where sheep rearing has become very important and the employment content in forestry is very low. Many people have been hoodwinked in the past into handing over their lands, thinking they were creating a reserve is the area where employment would be provided for their sons, daughters and for themselves in the forests. At present acres can be cut down in a week and no local person gets any employment. That is important. There should be liaison and consultation at high level between the Forestry Division and the Department of Lands on the transfer of any farms in the future. It should be examined and vetted carefully to see if it could in any way improve the income of the adjoining farmers.

We all know that the Forestry Division like to have the goodwill of neighbours in case of fire and so on. The Department of Lands should ensure that the most cordial relations exist between them, the forestry people and the people living in the area. The Minister recently opened a State forest and while I agree that was a good thing to do—I do not want to cast aspersions on the Forestry Division—I must point out that the Minister for Lands has a responsibility to ensure that land is available, if possible, for families who wish to remain on the land. Farms have been owned by families for generations. They lave the land. It may be a difficult life but they are not rushing away to the cities to live in built-up areas and skyscrapers. They want to stay in rural Ireland. We should do everything possible to ensure that they will stay there and have a decent standard of living.

Land is often divided in two or three portions. That may have happened because the owner bought the land in three different transactions or acquired it one way or another. I would hate that in some areas it would be possible for people to subdivide their large holding in order to ensure that they would not have to pay the full rates. Rates are abnormally high and nobody likes paying them. Nobody likes to see people shirking their responsibilities in this respect by a method, which seems to be legal at present but which should not be legal. Land can be held in the names of two or three people and because it is under the £20 valuation they are not liable for rates.

Reference was made to buying up large estates. There are not many in my area. If they are not being used properly and can be acquired in a peaceful way, it would be a healthy exercise for the Department of Lands to engage in, and if any large tracts of land are left they could be acquired and divided. That is tremendously important. It is even more important today because farmers have gone through a very tough time. They were trying to gear themselves to avail of the advantages of the EEC. Anything the Minister for Lands can do to help them will be very welcome.

There is another small matter I should like to mention. It may not be directly connected with land bonds but it is connected with the Department of Lands. In Dublin city we have the Land Registry, a very important office employing very dedicated people. The time has come when the Land Registry should be broken up and each country asked to cater for its own territory. Many people must go up to the city to visit the Land Registry. If each county had the files and papers——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I do not want to interrupt Senator Dolan but the Land Registry is under the Department of Justice. Many people think that it is under my Department.

Mr. Dolan

I appreciate that but the difficulty which many rural people have in understanding this is that we have the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Lands and the Land Registry.

An Cathaoirleach

We would like the Senator to keep to the subject of the Bill.

Mr. Dolan

The ordinary farmer wants these facilities near to hand and if possible in his county town. I appreciate that the Minister has not direct responsibility for it but I know that he will have no trouble in bringing this to the attention of the Minister responsible.

This Bill will be welcome. When we think of the tremendous inflation which has taken place of money the last two years, the amount of money being provided is totally inadequate. I am not blaming the Minister for that but he should go to the Minister for Finance and insist on a hearing. Farmers are people who cannot always accept the excuse that money is scarce. They have been treated very badly over the last two years and deserve something better. Anything that we can or the Minister can do to help them will be much appreciated. The Minister for Finance, if he is responsible, should bear that in mind.

Mr. Ferris

This is my first contribution in the House and I will try not to fall foul of the ruling of the Chair. This Bill is, of necessity, an enabling measure and it is quite difficult to remain within the very narrow limits that a debate on a short Bill of this kind allows. I welcome any Bill that will ensure a sufficiency of funds being available to the Land Commission to fulfil their obligations regarding the acquisition of land under the land acquisition scheme and the land resettlement scheme so that it can be divided amongst the smaller farmers to ensure that they have a satisfactory standard of living. This comes very close to our socialistic commitments in this field. We believe it is morally correct that, where large tracts of land are available and are not being worked properly for the betterment of the country we should have funds available in the Land Commission to ensure that this land can be acquired and redistributed to the poorer sections of our community, namely, the small farmers. Each year that passes, because of inflation, EEC membership and other reasons, shows that it is vital that these small farmers make their holdings very much larger so that they can contend with all these outside developments and enable them to maintain a sufficiently high standard of living.

I welcome the Minister's speech. His attitude to land bonds is well-known. I have been aware of his attitude to land bonds for some years and he is also aware of my attitude and indeed of the attitude of any committee on which I have sat, whether it be county council, county committee of agriculture or general council of agricultural committees, I have never yet heard anybody speak in favour of the land bonds system. I agree with the Minister that we must be realistic: this is a system which we inherited and unfortunately, because of the present economic situation and because of the financial implications involved it is not possible within the period of office of any Government, of within two periods of Government, completely to wipe out the land bond system and replace it with hard cash, the utopian system we all look for. We look forward to the time when the Land Commission with cash in hand can bid for land like any decent buyer at an auction. This, however, would possibly inflate the price of land beyond the means of ordinary purchasers of land who would be bidding for it in their own right.

We look forward to the day when land bonds can be phased out and money, made available. This would ensure the right of the individual to have proper, realistic compensation for his land. This Bill is welcome in that it raises the level of compensation to pretty decent standards with interest rates comparable with any other interest rates, even allowing for the bad taste associated with land bonds. The rate of 16 per cent is a fair effort by the Minister to ensure that there is realistic compensation of people whose lands are acquired in this way.

I was pleased to note in the Minister's speech that in the 21-month period ending in December £3¼ million was spent and that in this period alone —in fact in this year alone—the commission intend to have over £3.8 million available for the purchase of land and £490,000 available to pay premiums to farmers availing of the retirement scheme. It is true to say—if it is in order to mention the retirement scheme at this stage—that it is only now that the smaller farmers realise the benefit of the retirement scheme. For the first time in their lives, small farmers who have been unable to make a living from their land have now a system whereby they can opt into retirement and be compensated by the State for it. There is an assurance that their lands are redistributed to young farmers and families who can make a living with this additional land.

Reference has been made by various Senators to the delays involved from the time the Land Commission acquire land to the time they distribute it. This is a complaint that has been going on down through the years. We have, at general council of agricultural committees level, discussed this with the Land Commissioners and I understand that there are technical and other reasons for this delay. It is a pity that there should be a delay because if land is to be of benefit to people at all it should be distributed as quickly as possible so that the best possible benefits can accrue to those who receive it. Unfortunately by reason of these delays the Land Commission find themselves in the situation where they have to let land to people who, by the very fact of its being sublet to them neglect it. They refuse to manure it and then after a long time it is distributed in a very poor condition. By the time some unfortunate small farmer is given it by the Land Commission, the body and the heart of the land are gone because the person to whom it was sublet had no security in it and had no inkling that he might acquire it at a later stage.

I should like to put on record from Members on this side of the House our compliments to the staff in the Land Commission for the very fair and impartial way that they have distributed land which they have acquired. Irrespective of all the complaints we make about them—complaints regarding methods of payment and delay in distribution—they are doing a good job. Land is priceless—"the land of Ireland for the people of Ireland". It is second in importance to a man's house and we in the Labour Party ensure that the State will acquire land to build houses and give houses to people according to their necessity. Likewise, the Land Commission ensure, and we ensure through this Bill, that money is available to acquire land. The staff in the Land Commission ensure that it is distributed in a fair and impartial way and without any influence, political or otherwise, being brought to bear upon them.

I have been involved in agitations in land division for some time and I can say categorically that the Land Commission have been most fair. In spite of any ideas that might have been created in the past that political influence had something to do with land division, I would like to say that those who have acquired land have always acquired it on the basis that they were entitled to it and for no other reason. Long may the Land Commission remain in this situation immune from influence. They have done an excellent job to date.

I compliment the Minister and I look forward to further moves toward the complete and total abolition of land bonds. I know that this is dear to the heart of the Minister as it certainly is to our hearts and we look forward to an improvement in the situation that the Minister has inherited. He has done an excellent job in a short period of office.

Mr. Garrett

I believe that this is a very important Bill. It is one method by which the Land Commission can acquire land even if we have not ready cash. This is a wrong method of obtaining land because the landowners are generally badly hit. I know of a few cases where young men, in their early twenties, belonging to farming families emigrated to England. Some of them got jobs at home. When farms came up for sale in the localities in which they lived they purchased them but as the result of agitation and due to the fact that non-landowners evidently are not entitled to buy land according to the rules of the Land Commission, the commission stepped in and compulsorily acquired the lands. The result was that they paid by way of land bonds. Those involved probably had not enough money to buy the land themselves and would have had to borrow from brothers or fathers and also from the banks.

When a man is paid in land bonds for land for which he paid cash, he is sadly let down and at a risk of losing a lot of money.

I know one person who bought a farm on his return from England. He did a very good job on this farm. He introduced a water feeding system into each of the fields and built a silo and some sheds. He had to commute between England and Ireland because he was also looking after some portion of his business in England where he was in partnership with his brother. He also had a publichouse in Ireland in which he lived. The Land Commission maintained that he was not using his land properly and they stepped in and gave him a year to carry out further developments. During the year he was afraid to undertake any large scale development. All he did was to fertilise his land and at the end of that year, unfortunately, the Land Commission's decision was that the land was to be taken from him. He is now being paid in land bonds for land for which he paid a high cash price.

There is another young man I know who is in the same position. He is certain that his land will be taken from him by the Land Commission, although he had to borrow to the extent of about £7,000 to £8,000 along with his own cash for a £20,000 farm. It is very bad policy that a young man who came from a farming family but who, owing to the size of his father's farm, was forced to emigrate or else to look for employment elsewhere in Ireland but who wishes always to go back to farming may have to on acquiring a farm, let it for the first couple of years so as to obtain money to begin operations on it. It is nearly as easy to buy a farm now as to get it started taking into account the price of cattle. He may have to let some of it in grazing but I think he should get special consideration.

This man receives about £8,000 of a court settlement for land that the Land Commission will acquire. He is paid in land bonds. Does he receive 16 per cent interest on the £8,000 or does he receive interest on the worth of the land bonds on the stock exchange which, I understand is very low? I am not well up in these matters because I never had enough land for the Land Commission to take.

The period for redeeming land bonds is too long at 27 years. When a man's land is taken from him he may be 40 or 50 years of age. If he has to wait 27 years to redeem these land bonds it is probably his children who will have the benefit of them.

I should like the Minister to explain I whether it is a commercial farmer, a developing farmer or what kind of farmer who receives land from the Land Commission? One rumour in the west was that the only man who was entitled to receive an allocation of land from the Land Commission was a commercial farmer who qualified under the land project scheme. Another rumour which spread was that a developing farmer who was liable to become a commercial farmer was the only man entitled to an allocation of land from the Land Commission. We have been told also that the man who is not either in the developing or the commercial area will not get land from the Land Commission at any rate.

Another aspect of the division of land that I would like to draw to the Minister's notice is that when the Land Commission acquire the land on which there is a house—probably a house in respect of which grants from the county council had been paid— they let the land but the house is left to deteriorate. After a number of years it has so deteriorated that it is impossible to do anything with it. We in Mayo are in a sad and sorry state for housing. If the Minister could get the Land Commission to offer those houses to the local authority and if he accepted bonds from the local authority for the price of the house it would reduce the rates considerably for us. I would like the Minister to look into the matter and see if anything could be done with houses left on Land Commission farms. The local authority could buy them; sometimes local people might like to buy them. But it is very sad when they are left to deteriorate to such an extent that eventually when somebody gets them they are gone beyond repair.

I hope that eventually we will get rid of the method of land bond purchase but maybe this is a forlorn hope. When people are being paid in land bonds the redemption period of these land bonds should be brought down to a maximum of ten years. Under the present system the land bonds do not become redeemable during the lifetime of the persons to whom they were paid.

I hope the Minister will take note of the remarks I have made. The question of Land Commission houses is a very sore one with our local authorities in Mayo. We are trying to do something about acquiring them and letting them. There are numerous such houses in Mayo in the hands of the Land Commission that are deteriorating.

Mr. Kilbride

The allocation of land bonds as a means of compensation for land acquired by the Land Commission was initiated under the Land Act of 1923. At that time the then Government had the very difficult problem of acquiring large tracts of land which had been held by landlords—those who were Cromwell's planters. Very few people had much sympathy when these people were paid with bonds. It looked like a levelling off for what had been meted out to the Irish people when these lands had been acquired by the previous owners. Land bonds have since been allocated to very different people as payment for lands acquired. In many cases they are widows of decent farmers who met an untimely end and whose sons emigrated, not because they wished to achieve a higher status in life, but because of the difficulties and economic stresses of the time. The Land Commission acquired the lands and paid for them with land bonds. Land bond payments are viewed as confiscation of land. It is a matter of paying people with so many pieces of paper.

I know a case where the Land Commission acquired a farm of 110 acres from a woman whose husband had died. She had four daughters and a son who was delicate, and she was paid in land bonds which she could not cash. It was only possible to pledge them as security in the bank for 25 per cent of their face value. They would mature in 1978 or 1980. That should not happen here. The innovation of payment by cash for land acquired should be welcomed by everyone. The Minister is to be congratulated on his policy of phasing out land bonds. They should not be used as a means of fobbing off people.

Land acquired should be divided amongst small uneconomic landowners. In County Longford I know of at least eight small farms of less than 40 acres already acquired by the Land Commission. They have been let for the past eight or nine years in the expectation that three or four more small holdings would be surrendered to them and, when that day came, they could adopt a reasonably rational approach to the question of who should get the land. In a situation like that I should like to see the Minister making payments in cash. These people know nothing about land bonds and they believe they should get cash into their hands. They did not get their land as a result of a Cromwellian plantation. They had to work hard in order to eke out an existence. The source of their livelihood should not be taken from them without adequate compensation in cash. A farmer in his sixties or early seventies with one or two sons who has been allocated land to make his holding economic should put that holding in his son's name. This would give the son an incentive to stay on the land and an opportunity to advance himself.

The Land Commission do not seem to be paying any attention to the large syndicates which are buying up land in Westmeath and Meath and in various parts of Longford. This has also happened in Kildare and other counties. I should like the Minister to direct his attention to the large syndicates who have no roots in the agricultural community: retired professional people, large auctioneering firms and others who are acquiring hundreds of acres of land because they have the finances. They are forcing the smaller farmer out of his inheritance.

When 100 acres or so of land is offered for sale in Meath or Westmeath it is put on the open market and these wealthy professional people buy it. What hope has the small farmer of competing against them? A small farmer trying to make a living on an uneconomic farm would not be capable of paying the same amount and getting an economic return. When such a person outbids these syndicates he has to wear a hair shirt for the remainder of his life and his son is committed in the bank for another generation. These are the circumstances obtaining here today. We should aim at a balanced economic farming community, balanced to the extent that the producer of livestock, cereals, vegetables and other farm produce appropriate to particular areas will have a fair return for his work. I am referring now to real farmers as distinct from the speculator or the armchair farmers sending six or seven combine harvesters into, for instance, County Meath. I am talking about farmers who are prepared to make the agricultural infrastructure fully economic. There is this oscillation as between the moneyed farmer and the working-class farmer, so to speak. A certain type of farmer is getting out and another type is getting in. Where farmers work and make a living off the land I do not want to see any line drawn so long as the land is used to the best advantage and for the purpose for which God made it. I do not want to see commercial interests coming in and monopolising the wealth of the country in the way they are. The Land Commission are aware of these and have, I am sure, an indication of where it is happening. I am not a pink socialist and neither am I an ultra-conservative but I do not believe people should be forced off the land. Today, there are fewer than 22 per cent on the land. Half a century ago there was 45 per cent or 46 per cent and the balance of the economy then was 67 per cent to 70 per cent in favour of agriculture. The reverse is the situation now. If this trend continues the Minister will have to apply himself to the problem with even more energy. I want to say here that he is one of the best Ministers for Lands we have had; he is a Minister who has a realistic approach to what is appropriate in dealing with land. I want to see this bond scheme succeed and I wish him the very best of luck.

Mr. Brennan

I welcome this Bill. I should like to pay tribute to Senator Kilbride. He made a very worthwhile contribution on land bonds. The public and in fact all associated with them learnt to hold them in contempt.

If one went into a bank with cigarette cards the bank manager might listen, but not if one went in with land bonds. I agree with every word Senator Kilbride said regarding land bonds. Senator Ferris paid a compliment to the Land Commission. I endorse what he said and not only about the present Minister but also in regard to the previous Minister.

Excellent work has been done by these Ministers and the Land Commission. I have always found officials very helpful and honest. Senator Ferris hinted at undue influence. There is always the compensation here. The compensation here is that, when there is a tract of land being divided——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): In fairness to Senator Ferris, I think he made it clear that there was fair play at all times.

Mr. Brennan

Fine Gael supporters would say all the Fianna Fáil supporters got land. Now the position will probably be reversed—the same thing will be said about this Government's supporters. Of course there is nothing further from the truth; I am glad to say that there is no question of influence at all. The only thing one can do is influence the Land Commission in taking over a farm or a worthwhile holding. Sometimes the Land Commission are accused of delay; very often the delay is because the holding is not worthwhile.

I welcome the Bill. I come from a county of smallholders. In fact they have 11,000 rural dwellings in Monaghan on holdings of £20 valuation or under. Indeed, there are quite a few under £10 valuation. The Minister and the Land Commission want to make economic holdings. Some time ago it was thought a 50-acre farm of reasonable land was an economic holding. I do not think that holds any longer. My county was favoured in the early part of the century when the flax industry was at its height and, although it was a very demanding industry, nevertheless it was very rewarding. History tells me —I do not remember—that in the last century in the town of Monaghan there were no less than £5,000 a week paid out in gold and silver and half of that was in my town of Castleblayney. I saw in a recent press report they are growing flax down in Bunclody. They have found some new way of processing flax mechanically. I am not quite sure whether or not it is a success; I know it was not a success when people along the banks of the Boyne tried it.

I would hope the Minister's idea would be to try to get away from the conacre system or 11-months system. It was the most undesirable system out.

Somebody mentioned speculators. Sometimes a person would raise the price of land far above what it was worth and, consequently, eliminate the farmer who had been in the business all his life. I agree that speculators then purchased that land.

There is no better investment than land. If you buy property you can burn it and if you buy cattle they can die but land remains. Those people who have invested in the rich pastures of Meath and Westmeath have made a good investment. I do not think there is much else to say on this matter as I feel I am pushing an open door. I think the Minister's county is comparable with Mayo and, therefore, I have every confidence that his view is similar to mine.

Mr. A. O'Brien

I should like to join in the tributes paid to the Minister for the work he has done since he took up office some two years ago. I should also like to congratulate him on his statement that he does not like the land bond system. Land bonds are not, and have never been, popular.

The Minister said he hopes to phase out the system as soon as possible. We have figures to prove that in the last 18 months or so cash has been made available for the purchase of land at the rate of £1.85 million per annum as against an average of £0.3 million per annum for the nine year period previous to that. That is six times higher than the original sum. In plain language that is progress and it indicates that the Minister takes action commensurate with his beliefs. We have an attractive rate of interest of 16 per cent for land bonds in so far as they must be used in present circumstances. The Minister and his staff are to be congratulated for their part in the farm retirement scheme.

Senator O'Toole said earlier that the idea of retiring was a difficult one to get across to the farming community. This is due to our history in regard to the land question. This scheme was introduced as a voluntary one and it is satisfactory to note that in the short time of its existence agreement has been reached for sales in 90 applications providing a land acquisition of almost 3,400 acres. This scheme will play a big part in making small farm holdings viable and economic in future. It provides farmers with an opportunity to retire and in the same degree of comfort as is offered to other sectors of our community. Public representatives should play their part in getting this idea across to the people so that farmers who, through ill-health or because they are advanced in years are unable to get the maximum production from their land, will avail of this scheme, thereby giving the land to those who can make the best use of it. This will add to the wealth of the country.

Reference was made today to the fact that one of the Minister's predecessors said that the Land Commission had outlived its usefulness and that it should be abolished. I think this Minister has brought new life into the Land Commission. The running-down process, which had set in before he took office, has been checked. There was a shortage of staff but this has now been rectified. Work has speeded up considerably since the Minister took office.

The Minister represents a constituency of small-holdings. After taking office he extended to the counties of Cavan, Monaghan and Longford the half annuities scheme under which those who acquire land from the Land Commission now only pay half their annuities. That measure has been widely appreciated because it enables the people to make their holdings economic. They are able to meet the cost and can devote the money saved to making their land more productive.

Reference was made to forestry. The Land Commission must sometimes have the problem of deciding whether a parcel of land should be acquired for reafforestation or should be distributed to smallholders. That is something which depends on local circumstances. Generally, the land should be given to the smallholders in the vicinity, if the extra land would make an uneconomic holding viable. But, on the other hand, there are large tracts of land that would remain at a low productive level no matter what care or attention was given to them. This land should be planted with forests at all possible speed.

In regard to the point made by Senator Kilbride about speculators grabbing up land—I share his views in his regard—there are difficulties in dealing with this problem. As long as we have a system of free sale—which we all believe in—there will always be difficulty in preventing those with the necessary cash from buying up land to the detriment of neighbouring farmers who have not got the money for purchasing. But the Minister is determined that land acquired by the Land Commission will be redistributed to farmers as distinct from speculators or those who engage in farming as a sideline. He has made it clear that it is his policy that land, as it becomes available, should go to farmers who need it to make their farms economic. That is a policy with which the majority of our people would agree. The Minister's clear, outspoken views in this regard are much appreciated by everyone and we in this House should encourage the Minister to proceed on those lines in the future.

Mr. Whyte

I welcome this Bill. It is encouraging that the Minister considers that this £60 million will be needed in future and it is an indication of his intention to continue with the resettlement policy that has been in operation over the last few years. We know that many members of the agricultural community are not happy with the land bond system but it is not possible to phase it out quickly. In the future the policy of the Land Commission towards resettlement will be geared more towards the farm modernisation scheme and the retirement scheme for farmers.

It is encouraging also to note that farmers are being compensated in cash. This type of scheme will play a bigger part in the community than the taking over of big estates. The number of big estates available for redistribution is relatively small. Where there are big estates they are being well worked and the owners are giving good employment. The land in question which forms part of the wealth of the nation is not being wasted. If these estates were not well worked there would be need for acquisition but I do not think this position prevails. The work of the Land Commission in future will tend more towards aiding farmers to retire. This can be done by helping them to set their land on a long term basis to other smaller farmers or by taking over the land and redistributing it to those in need. I am in favour of encouraging ageing farmers to let their land to other small farmers. The Minister should consider the possibility of allowing a farmer to let his land on a long term basis to his son. At present, if he wishes to let his land on a 12-year basis which is the minimum, he can do so to a developing farmer in his area but he cannot let it to his son. This is a grave weakness in our land resettlement policy. Perhaps the Minister would comment on this when replying. The letting system has the merit that there is no immediate involvement of cash from the Land Commission to fund it.

The upper age limit is far too high. We all know that when a man is getting on in years he is not prepared to change or expand. Expansion is necessary in the future. It is no longer possible to make a living from the old-fashioned type of small farm, and the old farmer is seldom anxious to let the land to a more progressive neighbour or even to his own family who would have the initiative and the drive to make better use of the land. We must look to the Land Commission to encourage this type of letting in the future. I do not believe the Land Commission is coming towards the end of its useful activity. We will always have a body such as the Land Commission to supervise and direct land distribution. It is desirable to have holdings of an economic size—not too large, but not too small. The curse of this country in the past was that we had too many uneconomic smallholdings. We should try to solve this problem without recourse to the Exchequer and I think the letting scheme is the one most suitable for our requirements.

I welcome the Bill and I hope the Minister will be able to phase out the land bond system quickly. That would encourage farmers to let their land to neighbours and, if possible, to their sons.

Mr. McCartin

This subject has been very well discussed and most of the important points raised and I do not want to be repetitive. I agree with the Minister and Senators that the land bond system is not the best way of restructuring our farms. Restructuring of our farms is a very urgent priority, probably more urgent than many people realise. Sometimes people might be under the impression that, over the past number of years, a lot of work has been done and that the problem of the larger estates may have been largely solved. To my mind they are not the biggest problem existing at present. The biggest problem existing is the misuse of land because we have not enough full-time serious professional farmers in the business. We have far too many people beyond the age of initiative and of learning new techniques. We have far too many people whose holdings are so small and non-viable that they have given up hope and see no possibility of making a living from it. In addition the old sidelines like pigs and poultry, have slipped from the hands of the smallholder. Poultry disappeared first for very natural reasons. I do not think there is anything anyone can do about it because of the demand for food which can be produced at the right cost and sold at the right price. Small farmers keeping poultry or pigs did not produce the goods at the right cost and did not succeed in making a sufficient living for themselves or in selling the right product, at the right price, to the consumer. From pigs, poultry, dairying and store cattle they were able to eke out an existence in the past. But half of the time some of their enterprises did not make money at all.

In future we must ensure that land is viable. A farmer will not live on a farm just for the sake of so doing; he must have sufficient acreage of the sort of land from which he can reap an income. It is in this context that we must view the restructuring. Let us face up to the situation—a man can manage his pigs or his poultry without the use of agricultural land. The people who are responsible for the restructuring of our holdings must view the situation in this context.

While, in the past, the Land Commission were concerned largely with division of large holdings in the east of the country, in the future—and particularly in the 12 western counties from Donegal down to West Cork—there is an immense job of restructuring to be done. The people with whom we are dealing are the older people, the medium-sized and small farmers whose farms must be amalgamated. They would be amalgamated anyway because a larger percentage of owners are dying. I would prefer to see a restructuring body like the Land Commission handle this than have the law of the jungle prevail, with large estates being again bought up by speculators, possibly nationals of our partners in the European Community, or even speculators here who regard investment in land as a safe and worthwhile investment—some place into which to put their money and some place to retire to from the business life they sometimes find too much for them.

I see the Land Commission as having a very important role to play. At the moment I do not see them as discharging that role very efficiently. The Minister for Lands, has a much more efficient service in his Forestry and Wildlife Division than on the Land Commission side. I see the Land Commission as hindering the efficient working of his Department—a very difficult body to handle, and responsible for a lot of delays in administration at present.

I support Senator Keegan's call for much more power in the local offices. Reports and letters going up from the local offices to Dublin take months to be dealt with in the Land Commission. The Minister should take a serious look at this whole situation. Some far reaching legislation is required to get this whole machinery of the Land Commission—I am not saying that the commission as such, should be abolished—working more efficiently. I do not blame the Minister, his legal assistants or the men in the field for the delays being experienced at present in the division of land.

On the question of land bonds, I agree with the Minister that it is desirable to phase out the purchase of land through the bond system as quickly as possible. We all appreciate his difficulties, we know he realises the problems as fully as ourselves. At present people who sell land voluntarily to the Land Commission are in line for cash. People who do not sell land voluntarily, or against whom compulsory acquisition proceedings have been taken will not receive cash. The Land Commission should decide on the basis of who deserves cash than what have been the procedures for the acquisition of land. While I see a difficulty there with the small amount of cash available, nevertheless, sometimes we see people who have no possession in the world except their land putting it up for sale and, for one reason or another, do not offer it to the Land Commission.

Of course, in a lot of cases, they did not realise that if they did offer it to the Land Commission they could get cash for it in some circumstances, and in many cases they have. In such cases I have seen very efficient operation of the Land Act, where a farmer sold his land for cash to the Land Commission, the Land Commission took it over and had it divided within a reasonable time. The most efficient cases I have seen are those that have been sold directly for cash to the Land Commission. Sometimes an elderly man who has no other possession puts his farm up for sale; neighbours object; it comes to the notice of the Land Commission; compulsory proceedings take place; there are long delays, and eventually he is forced to take land bonds. In such circumstances regard should be taken of the age of the person concerned. To give land bonds to an elderly man who is retired and who sees them only as pieces of paper which are of no use to him is not treating him very sympathetically.

We have raised the percentage here to 16 per cent. While it is certainly a good move one does not get the impression it will be very encouraging to the average man observing the rate of inflation we have been experiencing over the past few years; suspecting that we are going to have a very high rate of inflation in the future; remembering that people thought some years ago that a 6 per cent investment was a very good thing, and were sadly disappointed a few years afterwards to discover that bonds, cash or investments earning 6 per cent became worthless over a short period. For all of those reasons 16 per cent land bonds still will not be very attractive to the people in the 12 western counties. We will be dealing not with the tycoons, business people or people for whom land was an investment but people for whom land was their only livelihood.

With regard to the farm retirement scheme, particularly in the areas I have mentioned, it is a pity that the pension a man gets from the land given over to the Land Commission will operate against him for the purposes of social welfare, old age pension and so on. Old age pensioners, after their initial investigation and having it established that that will be counted as their means for the purpose of pensions, will be slow to avail of it.

On the whole question of land bonds and consolidation of small holdings, if a small farmer comes to me and says: "There is a farm up for sale in my immediate area. Can you get the Land Commission to do something about it?" my first reaction is to say: "Can you not raise the money by some means and buy the farm yourself? In this way you will have the land when you want it and will be able to start farming it by next spring and you might find in the long run that it is the best way to acquire it."

This is probably the best thing for a small farmer to do. Furthermore, it is a better way than when the Land Commission divides it, because the small farmer in that area who has the most initiative and the better knowledge of his own business will generally be the purchaser in that case. We should have some machinery through which the Land Commission could subsidise 25 per cent of land purchased through the ACC. The Minister could possibly work out some scheme that could be operated jointly with other schemes. He would not have to abolish the rental system, but there must be some means through which a subsidised purchase scheme could operate through the ACC. This would lead to much more efficient consolidation in many cases.

We all know that when the Land Commission divides a holding they must be extremely careful; they must be conscious of the rights of all the small farmers in the area and they must balance matters very carefully. In that case it does not often result in the very best farmer in the area obtaining the land. It can often result in a farmer getting the land who does not really want it badly and who does not intend to use it most efficiently.

However, I want to congratulate the Minister on the fact that since he has come to office there is great confidence amongst the small farmers that land will be divided on a fair and just basis. In recent times when estates have been divided I have not seen the old panic that if the farmers had not got influence with people in high positions they would not get their just share. I hope the Minister will continue to run his office in a manner that will inspire the sort of confidence that the small farmers have in its fairness.

The Forestry Division are not very popular in the west of Ireland because sometimes they have purchased land which small farmers in the area regretted the Land Commission had not purchased and divided. I should like to see more co-operation and a more flexible attitude between these two sections of the Department. In some cases one could not make a strong case that the Land Commission should buy the land and divide it because one would know by looking at that land that there was no future in it, and that the social structure of the area would not lead to the proper utilisation of this land. While there are people in those areas we should not say to them: your area is finished, and you people are written off as a complete loss and the outlook is wait until you die and let the area die with you.

The Forestry Division should adopt a much more lenient and flexible attitude. The Land Commission officers should step in and take small areas of the better part of this land and divide it. This would be a gesture to people who have been there for a long period and generations before them. It would indicate that the Government are concerned about the people as well as about policies, about the people who are there at the present time as well as about what is going to happen in 20 years' time. Somebody said to me that modern thinking does not take any account of the next 10 or 15 years, but where old people are living in an area there is no point in saying: "That area will not have any population in 20 years' time and, therefore, we do not regard their rights for the next 10 or 15 years as being important, even if these people are elderly." Even if there is no future in the area, I still think the Land Commission should work in conjunction with Forestry and give these people what they need for the remaining years they will be there. I have other ideas on the question but, perhaps, we will get another opportunity of discussing them.

The Forestry Division buy land in western areas without having complete and due regard to the entire situation. Particularly in the last three or four years, one found that when prices of cattle increased at an extraordinary rate we had farmers very anxious to acquire land and there was a great regret in the west of Ireland about some of the farms that were planted. In the long run I do not know whether this is good or bad. I want to see Forestry and the Land Commission working together much more closely. It is ridiculous to see a situation where Forestry buy a farm of land and it takes the Land Commission three years to make up their minds about whether that land should be planted or divided. Having made up their minds that it ought to be divided, the next thing is to get a sort of typed agreement between Forestry and Land Commission. After all, it is only two sections of the one Department and the Minister should see to it that they work more efficiently.

The Minister has been in office for only two years and in that time he has had a new directive for a farm retirement scheme. He has had to face the problems of the scarcity of cash in the Exchequer and realise that, given sufficient time and the right economic climate, there are improvements which he can make. I have every confidence that he will be able to make the Department of Lands a department in which the farmers will have confidence. It is the Department to which I look to carry out the sort of restructuring that requires to be done. People who say that the Land Commission have outlived their usefulness, that they should turn their attention to other things are entirely wrong in their thinking. There is still much important work that remains to be done and we have a Department to do that work.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

The purpose of this Bill is to increase land bonds from £40 million to £60 million. Like the Minister, I have never been a fan of the land bond system. Many of the finest estates have slipped through the hands of the Land Commission because of the unavailability of cash to buy them. As a result, they are in the hands of, perhaps, not the best type of producer that could own this type of land. These lands have slipped away from many uneconomic holders who looked forward to the Land Commission acquiring and dividing them.

I come from an area where the Land Commission have been very active over the past 30 years, where many thousands of acres have been divided. Many families have been brought into the area, have been given Land Commission farms, settled down and done very well. In the early days of land distribution, 30 years ago, a farm of 25 to 30 acres seemed economic. That has all changed and it is generally conceded that a viable farm by the standards of today is approximately 50 to 60 acres.

I am talking about reasonably good land in Meath. I am not suggesting that 50 or 60 acres in any other part of the country would be the equivalent of Meath land. The position is that so much land has been divided in Meath that there are not now many non-residential farms of, say, 150 to 300 acres available compared with 30 years ago. There are still a few and some of them have changed hands recently. Many of the people who were brought to the county are now in uneconomic holdings and would possibly not be able to carry on were it not for the fact that they take land on 11-month lettings at very high prices. They may have to give up farming, have a few dry stock and go on the labour market but they are not the type of people who want to do this.

The Minister in his introductory statement pointed out that £3.8 million is available for the purchase of land this year. Where an estate comes on the market and where there are ten or 12 uneconomic holders who were brought into Meath 30 years ago, or perhaps natives of the county with smallholdings of 25 acres, this money might be earmarked for the purchase of that estate. It might be only on the market once in a lifetime. If the Land Commission cannot acquire that estate when it is on the market somebody else will come in and buy it and that means all the hopes of those uneconomic holders in the area are dashed. Where there is a farm of 200 acres and the Land Commission have the cash and are in a position to go to the auctioneer and buy the farm, it should be divided up among those uneconomic holders. That would make their situation very much different.

I want to stress that where the Land Commission acquire land and allocate it to the local uneconomic holders you have a two-tier system where somebody coming into the area from the underdeveloped areas gets the land at a different price. He gets it as a halved annuity. But a man even though he might have only come into the county ten years previously, from Mayo, Galway or Kerry is deemed as a local and if an estate is divided and this local man gets an addition he has to pay a very pricey sum per acre per annum over 48 years. The land costs him approximately £33 per annum per statute acre. The Land Commission's statute acre is not noted for size. These uneconomic holders are not getting a present but at least they have the advantage of knowing that they have that land at £30 per statute acre for all time and that they have not to take land on the 11-months letting and perhaps pay £60 or £70 for it.

I suggest to the Minister that the Land Commission inspectors should have some system of priority where there is an unoccupied farm for sale anywhere in Ireland. The money should be earmarked for that farm because if it passes out of the hands of the Land Commission it passes out of the hands of the local uneconomic holders and their hopes are dashed for all time.

References have been made here to the new 16 per cent bond which looks attractive and is redeemable over 27 years. I would like the Minister to indicate what effect this 16 per cent is likely to have on the people who get land under this new land bond system. Will it increase the price of their land still further and, if so, by how much? It is immaterial to me whether it is increased from £40 million to £60 or £100 million. Like the Minister I have no enthusiasm for the land bond system. As long as we have the land bond system it will be difficult to acquire the amount of land that the uneconomic holders throughout this country would like to acquire.

Mr. Deasy

I welcome this Bill and I welcome the Minister for Lands to the Seanad. He may use this as a breaking-in session for the Wildlife Bill which we are due to discuss shortly. We will probably keep the Minister here for several weeks.

The Minister has listed the figure of small farmers as being 46,000—a huge number who have holdings which are not viable. The £20 million which he intends to make available through this Bill is badly needed. Unfortunately that amount is in the form of land bonds which are not so attractive. We appreciate and welcome his statement that he is trying to get more and more cash available for the purchase of land.

As Senator Fitzgerald stated, in years gone by a viable farm, could have a very low acreage—30 or 40 acres was considered viable. Nowadays farming is becoming a far more competitive business, it is big business. The number of acres required to make a reasonable living has increased considerably. This has created all sorts of problems not alone for the farmers but for the Land Commission.

I wish specifically to refer to the maiden speech of Senator Ferris and compliment him on it and to reiterate the points he made. The first thing is that the Land Commission must be seen to be impartial. As far as I am concerned they have been impartial down through the years and I am glad to see them continuing in the same vein.

Senator Brennan made the very valid point that the public feel that when Fianna Fáil are in power their supporters get the land that is divided and that when Fine Gael or Labour are in power the opposite occurs. As politicians, we know that is untrue. We must condition the public into believing that it is untrue also. The Land Commission's job would be made considerably easier if this was acknowledged by everyone.

The Land Commission work under severe difficulties and I am sure staffing is one of their major ones. We, as public representatives in dealing with the Land Commission, encounter this quite often. Their work has to be confidential and it has to be painstaking. The division of land is very important. They cannot afford to make mistakes. We find that communications between the Land Commission offices and ourselves leave something to be desired. Perhaps the Minister could look into this and improve it by providing extra staff.

The division of land needs to be speeded up. Division of land sometimes takes many years and small farmers, in need of land, find this most frustrating. It is probably due to a severe shortage of staff and the fact that people who wish to acquire land have to be vetted in a painstaking manner by Land Commission officials.

I would ask the Minister to relax some rules regarding the allocation of lands, for example, the rule that one must be within one mile of the holding, that one must have a certain amount of land already to qualify for part of an estate. These rules could be bended more than they are at present. They are inclined to be too rigid. I have seen people who are disqualified because they could not fulfill the conditions laid down by the Land Commission. Some of these people are very good workers. They may be people with cottage acres and people who take conacre. Some of them would, I am sure, prove to be very successful if given the opportunity. I do not agree with the bringing in of immigrant farmers to areas which are reasonably congested. Perhaps the Minister could relax those rules a little.

The Minister stated:

Quite an amount of the lands acquired by the Land Commission are owned by non-farmers who originally bought them as a speculative investment and who can make a handsome profit on their disposal.

I do not know whether that statement is incorrect or whether my understanding of the English language imperfect. I find it a bit difficult to comprehend. Speculators—Irish speculators—have bought up large tracts of land and the Land Commission do not seem to have been able to compete with those people. In no instance have I seen the Land Commission take lands off such people. This statement would lead one to believe that this is what happens. Some businessmen buy land as an income tax evasion method. They will be caught under the new wealth tax law but maybe they will get out of it by using their accountants or some method used by big businessmen to evade tax. I would like the Minister to take a hard look at cases where speculators have bought these estates and continue to retain them at the expense of local smallholders.

The retirement scheme has been a reasonable success. I would not say it is an outstanding success. There are 46,000 smallholdings and 90 people availing of the retirement scheme. There is a huge void in between.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Ninety have been processed. There are 1,250 applicants.

Mr. Deasy

That is fine. Farmers who are not of pension age and who hand their farms over to their sons do not qualify under this scheme unless they have an outside holding. Would the Minister look into this? A man in his early or middle fifties whose health is not very good and who wishes to hand over his farm to his son should be given consideration under this scheme.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator McAuliffe. Before the Senator commences it is now a few minutes before the usual time for the luncheon adjournment——

Mr. McAuliffe

I propose that we adjourn.

Business suspended at 12.55 and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. McAuliffe

I am glad to get an opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is the shortest Bill I have ever seen before the House, as the Minister described it this morning, and yet it has generated more good contributions than I have heard for quite a long time. There is nothing controversial about the Bill and for that reason I think the Minister has done quite a good job in the method in which he has presented it to us. He was a Member of this House on one occasion and spoke very much against the land bond system. He did so once again as a Member of the Dáil and now that he is a Minister he has brought in this Bill to try to abolish everything that was objectionable in the land bond system.

We in the midlands perhaps know more about the land bond system than anyone else because any land that was taken there during the term of the previous Government was by compulsory acquisition and the people did not get any opportunity whatsoever of accepting cash for their holdings. They just had to accept land bonds at a bad rate of interest. Some of those people were forced to sell their land bonds or forced to give them away because it is very difficult to get people to buy land bonds because of the long redemption period.

The Minister said he would like to see the day when he could redeem all land bonds. Looking at this morning's newspapers and looking at the statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, if we strike oil I think he would be in the position to do so. A figure of 16 per cent looks a good rate of interest but from what I know it is not tax free and for that reason it is not attractive. If it were at 16 per cent I am quite sure there are people with money who would invest in land bonds and be happy to have their 16 per cent interest, even over the 27-year period. As it stands at the moment, not being tax free, it is not attractive for any investor because no one knows what will happen within a period of 27 years.

A little criticism that I have is that the Land Commission hold on to land too long. We have a big number of farms in the midlands which were taken seven and eight years ago and yet they are still with the Land Commission. What is worse is that they are being let at a most ridiculous rate. A neighbour nearby comes in and bids for land and no one else bids, so he has it. They have it for absolutely nothing at the moment. I should like to see the Minister ensuring that these lands that were acquired quite a time ago are divided among the uneconomic holders in the area. There was a time when, from any land acquired in the midlands not one perch was given to the uneconomic holders there. People were brought in from the congested areas and admittedly they have done a very good job. We have quite a number of them in my area and they have really been a tremendous success. I am glad to see people getting land who work it and make it a success.

I was at the Aontas Conference last weekend and it was stated that 24 per cent of the people of Ireland earn their living through the land, whereas in some other EEC countries the percentages are France 12 and Italy 16— I suppose in Germany it is lower, but France is the lowest at 12 per cent. It was stated at the conference that 25,000 people would have to leave the land every year so that we in this country will bring down the percentage working on the land to around 12 to 14 per cent. That is why Aontas are so active at the moment. They will have to train people to go into industry or some other employment because there will be no employment on the land if we do not run the land in such a way that it will be productive and give a living to the people who are determined to stay.

I was glad to hear the Minister refer to the pension scheme. Senator Deasy said he was disappointed with the number. The number being processed is 1,200 whereas only 90 applications have been attended to so far. I hope the Minister will ask the Land Commission to rush land division forward so that uneconomic holders will get an increase in the amount of land they have. Then they will make a good job of it. Quite an amount of land being held by people or being sold by people so as to gain the benefits of the pension scheme has not been worked for years. It is just unfertilised scrub and the sooner it is put into production the better it will be for the country at large.

Senator Deasy asked that in the division of land there would be impartiality. I have no doubts about the impartiality of the Minister and I am sure he will keep an eye on the Land Commission and the impartiality will continue. I have a cutting from a newspaper—I forgot to bring it here today—stating that at a Fianna Fáil ard-fheis some years ago the motion was that supporters of the party in power at the time would be given first consideration. The late Seán Moylan answered that all things being equal he would give preference to the supporter of the party. I would not call that impartiality.

Mr. Garrett

Could we have the source of the quotation?

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator said he did not have the quotation with him but he paraphrased what it contained.

Mr. McGlinchey

Was the Senator in Fianna Fáil at that time?

Mr. McAuliffe

That is why I know it so well. There is a regulation about living within a mile from the divided land. It is possible that a person would not get a good farm within the limit. Therefore, it should be abolished.

Another proviso not already mentioned here was that a person must be married to get additional land. Sometimes a farmer cannot afford to get married unless he gets the extra land. Also, the owner must have a receivable order. I know of cases where people had three votes and after paying the Land Commission what they owed, they became freeholders and they were not considered. That was a disaster. I would only give land to people who would live on the land and not to people living in labourers' cottages who are working in Bord na Móna, in forestry or on the roads.

There have been abuses in the Land Commission. When farms are vested people have sold them for £10,000 or £12,000 and they could not be stopped. There was a regulation here that if a labourer sold his vested cottage he had to give one-third back to the county council provided he was still making repayments. I am glad to say that regulation no longer exists. It is important that land be given to people who will get the maximum benefit from it. I welcome the day when any one who has land bonds will have the opportunity of redeeming them and using the money to their best advantage.

Mr. Codd

I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on the fine work he has done since taking office. This Bill enables the Land Commission to have a greater supply of land available for distribution among small farmers in order to make uneconomic holdings viable.

In County Wexford we may not have as many uneconomic holdings as in other parts of the country, but there are quite a number. There are a number of large farms which are not as productive as they should be. I should like to see them being taken over by the Land Commission. I was glad to hear the Minister say that he intended to phase out the purchase of land by land bonds and all purchases over the next few years will be made in cash. People are not prepared to sell land to the Land Commission unless they are paid in cash.

Some Senators also mentioned the delay in the division of land. If land is let on the 11-months system over seven or eight years unless it is well fertilised it will be in very bad condition when it is handed over to some small farmer. He will then have to fertilise to get the return from it which he deserves. Mention was also made of foreign speculators coming in and buying large tracts of land. We also have the business people from Dublin who are not deriving their living from the land, purchasing land as an investment. They are depriving farmers of these extra acres which they need to make their holdings economic. Those farmers do not have a chance against the business people with plenty of money. I again welcome this Bill and look forward to the day when all purchases will be made in cash. There has always been the problem that people will not give their land to the Land Commission while land bonds are in use.

Mr. McGlinchey

When Fianna Fáil were in office the then Opposition sought every opportunity to criticise the Government for buying land with land bonds. Recalling those criticisms I would have thought this Government at the first opportunity would have wiped them out altogether. This is another classic example of the spokesmen of this Government learning that many of the criticisms they offered while in Opposition were unrealistic and unjustified. Indeed, they cannot fulfil many of the promises which the Government made while in Opposition to correct the mistakes of Fianna Fáil.

It is obvious that people do not want to sell land for land bonds. If the Land Commission programme is to be expedited, then this Government, or some future Government, must decide to buy land for cash. We have been told today that under Fianna Fáil political patronage was used in the distribution of land. Land Commission officials are not interfered with and in most cases it is the recommendation of the local Land Commission officer that is implemented in the last analysis. In most cases the recommendation that he makes is to give the land to the people who need it and who live as closely as possible to the farm.

There is a point to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister. I recall under previous legislation, when Fianna Fáil were in office, making a similar case and that is the gross injustice that landless men in parts of this country suffer at the hands of the Land Commission. In County Donegal there are farmers with a yard full of machinery and a byre full of cows who are working 40 or 50 acres of land but who do not own a single rood of it. Very often, when large farms are divided these men, who for years and years were taking this land by conacre, are completely overlooked when the division takes place. I remember being told that the Land Commission have no set rules for this man; that there is no rule which prohibits a landless man from getting land but I got the feeling that it was not encouraged by the Land Commissioners. I am aware of many good farmers, farmers who did not own a rood of land, being put out of business as a result of the failure of the Commission to give them the consideration that I feel they deserve when a farm is being divided.

It is a problem that may only be peculiar to certain parts of this country and that one of those parts is my own native county. I should like to hear the Minister's views on this subject. We have been told in the past that the main purpose of land division is to reduce congestion but I feel that men of the type I am speaking of have proved beyond doubt that they are capable and excellent farmers. Each year they could pay £50, £60 and £70 per acre for land and still make it pay. By their actions they have proved themselves worthy. There is a future for Irish agriculture. I would ask the Minister to have another study carried out within the Land Commission to see if anything can be done to improve this situation.

There is another question I should like to put. In many parts of this country there are large tracts of commonage. I know one of 250 acres, some of 40 acres and some of 50 or 60 acres and only just the other day a man asked me to make inquiries if the owners of the land wished to have this commonage divided. What is the policy of the Land Commission in this regard? If there are 17 or 18 owners and the majority of them want to have it divided, what is the policy of the Land Commission? If the majority are not in favour of this division, if one or two persons make a request to the Land Commission for the share to which they are legally entitled, would the Land Commission be prepared to divide the commonage? There may not be many such commonages, but I am personally aware of two—one of 240 or 250 acres and another of possibly 60 or 70 acres. I should like to hear the Minister's views, either now or at some other time on this matter.

Finally, I should like to express the hope that the day is not too far distant when land bonds will no longer be required because I believe firmly that the Land Commission would do a much more effective job by buying all the land they require for cash.

Mr. W. O'Brien

Like the previous speaker, I should like to welcome the Bill. I never really liked land bonds. I believe they are very poor compensation for people who have to part with their land. Some scheme should be introduced whereby small farmers would be paid by cash. There could be a ceiling of £20 or £30 valuation for these cash payments.

I have in mind a family whose small farm has been taken over by the Land Commission. There were four people who were scattered over Europe involved in the transaction. They were paid by land bonds. I do not believe that is a good thing to do. I am glad the Minister has assured us that the land bond system is about to be phased out.

Senator McGlinchey mentioned the plight of landless men. I wholeheartedly agree with his views. People who have been taking land for years and deriving their living from it might find that when the farm is divided they would not get any of it. I do not know if there is any legislation that prohibits the Land Commission from granting such person a portion of land but if there is, it should be repealed. I have known people to buy tons of fertiliser throughout the year and have them spread throughout the land but the following year or two that land was divided which meant that somebody else derived the benefit from the way that land was treated.

As regards the man in the cottage who has no land, I often wonder why he can only get a total of five acres, known as an accommodation plot. I am not satisfied that five acres today is adequate for a man and his family even if he is working.

We have another glaring example of what is wrong, that is, the 45 acres which is a recognised ceiling for a farmer to live on. We should be thinking of a ceiling of around 70 or 80 acres. Sometimes people leave the land because they have seen their fathers work too hard all their lives and can see no hope of increasing the acreage other than to buy more. We have also this regulation regarding the one-mile distance. Somebody tells you that he qualified but, that, unfortunately he was outside the area stipulated. It is about time we extended that limit to at least five miles. It is heartbreaking for a man to be deprived of a portion of land merely because he is a quarter of a mile outside the limit.

Regarding land that is let by the Land Commission, sufficient notice of their intentions to divide or otherwise should be given to the lessee.

After land is acquired by the Land Commission, it is often left for six or seven years. It may then be rented for 12 months and the following year rented again to somebody else. The situation becomes a comedy. Why should any man buy as much as one bag of fertiliser if somebody else is going to reap the benefit of it. The Land Commission should not buy if they are not prepared to divide within a reasonable time.

I trust the Minister will take note of the points I have made.

Mr. Killilea

I suppose one must welcome this Bill because of the need for it. It is common knowledge that the Land Commission have not enough money to purchase land that is offered to them. The bond system has operated since the beginning of the State and it has had an up-and-down history. In modern times the bonds themselves as a unit of payment cannot be depended upon either for now or for the future. People who are selling holdings are under the whip of the Land Commission from the time they think of selling. They may even find themselves selling by necessity to the Land Commission through the various forms of Land Commission courts. The insult to them is when they receive land bond payment. They find that when they go to check those land bonds and to cash them that the amount of money they receive is certainly not near to the figure to which they had previously agreed. I agree with the Minister that land bonds should be phased out.

We are at a stage when we wonder what road the Land Commission are taking. We had the farm modernisation scheme and with that we had from the EEC the scheme for retirement. That was some two years ago. Seemingly the scheme for retirement, while it is not great, is certainly making some headway. Directive 159 is in a collapsed state. If we follow the two hand-in-hand we will find ourselves in the situation where less than 3 per cent of the farmers of County Galway will be categorised at the developing stage which would qualify them for the farm modernisation scheme. The last figures I had were that, out of an application of 2,700 odd, 46 farms were put in the development category.

This scheme is a failure from more points of view than one but the £1,800 levy section of it is not entirely the cause of the failure. The big failure is that, if land in an area becomes available from the Land Commission, the first person eligible for land in that area is a farmer who has been classified as a development farmer. If we have only 46 farmers in that category out of 2,800, or if only 3 per cent of our farms are in the development category, how on earth can the retirement pension scheme operate correctly? I know a man with 240 acres and he just made the development category by the skin of his teeth. If land comes up for sale adjacent to him through the retirement pension scheme, he is the very first person and the only person eligible for that land from the Land Commission. This is a factor that we must look into. Many people I have spoken to in the county have seen the disgraceful way in which the disadvantaged areas scheme and the headage payments were allocated. Indeed it was a bigger scandal——

Acting Chairman (Mr. McCartin)

The Chair would like to intervene and ask the Senator to relate his remarks more closely to the subject of land bonds.

Mr. Killilea

I am talking about land bonds and the Land Commission. The Land Commissioners are the people who pay land bonds. They also pay the retirement money and that land is being distributed by the Land Commission to people I say are not entitled to it in the first instance. I accuse the Government of that.

If we cannot get categorised we cannot get land and we are so poor that we cannot, obviously, from the statistics and the criteria laid down. Yet in the distribution of the money for the headage payments only two little portions of our county were included, without consultation with the county committee of agriculture which, indeed, was an insult to their integrity, an insult to their ability. They are asked to do all the dirty work. Yet when they should have been consulted on this issue, they were not.

This may seem to be getting away from the Land Bonds Bill as such, but it is linked with it from the point of view of the distribution of land purchased by land bonds. The job of the Land Commission has always been an onerous task. They have been accused of many things with which I do not agree. They have done a reasonably good job under the circumstances. The type of change which is expected in the Land Commission will make the job of their officers and staff very onerous indeed. There is no doubt at all that they are hard pressed at the moment.

A member of the Minister's party stated publicly in our county that we had not half enough Land Commission officers to do the work on hand. He was right. It is safe to say that in the county of Galway—I would include Mayo as well, but I am not so sure about it—the biggest landlords are the Land Commission. They have had farms for the past 14 years in some instances and, for reasons known only to the Land Commission, they just will not divide them. I asked the previous Minister and this Minister if something could be done, and the reply was that in due course something would be done. That was the reply four years ago as well as today.

I suggest that the Minister should try to reallocate these lands before the divisive tactics of the EEC, which are agreed to by this Government, have their effect because most of the people who would be eligible now for extra land obviously will not be eligible under the new modernisation and retirement schemes. The figure of £45 poor law valuation which was in operation up to now as the maximum a farmer could have and be eligible for reallocation by the Land Commission will go by the board. If we must give land acquired by the Land Commission, through the retirement scheme proposal, then a poor law valuation of £45 is definitely and positively out because, as I have already said, I know a man with over 200 acres of land who could just make the grade as a development farmer.

The Land Commission have made efforts in the past three or four years to sublet some of their land for tillage. This was a welcome move but not enough work has been done in this field, particularly in our county of Galway, where land is needed for tillage because of the three-year rotation for sugar beet and the three-year rotation for most root crops. When one realises that the county has an average poor law valuation of £24, one can see the necessity for those farmers, and in particular tillage farmers, to have more land available to them.

I would ask the Minister to review this aspect of letting to ensure that the land will not deteriorate. If it is tilled it will be nourished and looked after and the best value will be obtained from it. If it is let go on the basis of the 11-month system for grazing only, no fertilisers are applied and the idea is to knock the most value out of the land while putting in the least. Farms which are not ready for immediate division should be considered for tillage. Value for money would accrue to the Land Commission from an investment such as that. That might be getting away from the idea that land when purchased should be divided among the people of the locality as soon as possible. There are many instances where those farms could be divided immediately if personnel were available, if goodwill among the people of the locality was available, and if there was a direction from the Land Commission through the Minister that holdings of high value should be divided as soon as possible.

One is tempted to say it would be a good political gimmick if it were a fact that politics got land for any man of a particular persuasion. We all know that is not the fact; the Land Commission are always fair and impartial. I have no hesitancy in recommending the Minister to direct the Land Commission to divide land immediately purchase has been completed.

Mention was made of commonage. A great deal of work has been done and the initiative, rightly, has been placed on those who own commonage. In most cases, particularly where I live, thousands of acres of commonage have already been divided with great success. This is a credit to the people in the locality and to the Land Commission. But there are still thousands of acres to be divided. Holders of commonage should be asked to get together to see if they could come to some arrangement. Commonages can be very productive; many have been amazed at the productivity of these commonages after the application of fertilisers and proper drainage.

Division should be intensified. There are areas where particular individuals never agree with their neighbours. Six may want to divide the commonage and one man for some reason, silly or otherwise—in most cases it is silly—holds up division indefinitely. I know of an instance in an area near Headford where one man is holding up the division of a fine farm of about 250 acres with seven tenants. I suggest that the Minister or the Land Commission should look into this matter. The Land Commission should introduce a compulsory division order because something compulsory will have to be done to protect the majority in this instance. In most cases there is a 90 per cent to 95 per cent majority. It is absolutely necessary that the Minister should bring in legislation to remedy this unsatisfactory situation.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I do not want to interrupt the Senator, but does he believe the compulsory division of commonage feasible? Does he think it would work?

Mr. Killilea

I would think "yes" in circumstances where all the other roads and avenues have been explored and no solution found. The Land Commission would be the best judges of this. Having investigated and discovered that one or two out of ten are holding up division, I certainly think we should legislate for the other nine, or whatever the number may be. Normally the number who want to subdivide is greater than the number who do not. When all available avenues have been explored and no solution found, then it is our responsibility to ensure the existing unsatisfactory position is corrected. I do not know the Minister's feelings about this but it is something that should be investigated.

Acting Chairman

The Chair has been very lenient with the Senator but I do not see this as being directly related to the subject matter of the Bill before the House. I agree it is an interesting subject for discussion, but I would ask the Senator now to try to come more closely to the subject under discussion.

Mr. Killilea

The Bill is, as I said, welcome. There is, of course, nothing very extraordinary about it. It is commonly known throughout the country that the Land Commission at this moment of time have not twopence to buy land. That may not be completely factual. I might be asked to prove it but one cannot always prove what one hears though one knows quite well there is some grain of truth in it.

I hope the Minister listened to the few points I made. I think they are important. To finalise, I should like to say that an effort must be made by the Department of Lands in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to review the situation with regard to the distribution of land acquired from the farm retirement scheme. This is vital. An effort must be made by the Land Commission to divide the land they hold as quickly as possible. The subletting of land for tillage is of vital importance, particularly in the west of Ireland.

I certainly welcome the Minister's statement that land bonds should be phased out. Phasing out is, of course, a question of money. The Government should make every effort to find that money. I know the amount would be substantial but the nation's wealth is in its land and in those who work that land.

Mr. Butler

I will be brief. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this Land Bond Bill. This is a big step in the right direction. The interest paid on land bonds is now 16 per cent. We could not expect any higher interest than that. A further improvement is the redemption after 27 years of land bonds.

I should like to congratulate the Land Commission on what they have done. Political patronage does not play any part in the Commissioners work. This point was raised by Senator McGlinchey. I have heard on numberous occasions at cumann meetings, when the division of land was discussed, many farmers present were promised land by the politicians. Many were fooled as it is clear that political patronage does not form part of the Commission's work. People who attended those meetings who afterwards got land from the Land Commission were told by the politicians that it was due to their efforts that they got it. I am glad all the Senators have realised that political patronage plays no part in the Land Commission's work and that they have made their feelings public.

I was surprised to hear that there are still 46,000 small farmers who are desperately in need of extra land. What effect had land division on this figure? I do not know whether it was decreased. What effect had land division on the number who are still on the borderline?

I made representations to the Land Commission to take over a large stretch of land in an area close to me. The Commissioners investigated that portion of land and told me they could not acquire it as there were not enough small farmers in the area. To me that answer was ridiculous. Even if there were only three small farmers in the area, surely the amount of land they would receive would make their holdings viable. Perhaps a small parcel of land could be given to an emigrant farmer and so make his farm viable. The portion of land he had vacated could be given to help some other farmer in another area.

Senator McGlinchey said that the Minister had made no effort to improve the purchase of land by cash. In the Minister's speech it is stated that for the 21 months to 31st December, 1974, cash payment for land purchased was £3.25 million and the total cash for land purchased by the Land Commission for the preceding nine years only amounted to £2.8 million. Surely this is a vast improvement? I hope it continues. The land bond system cannot be changed to cash overnight. A gradual improvement is necessary. The 16 per cent interest on the land bonds is a great help. A 100-acre farm taken over by the Land Commission at £600 an acre is £60,000. Interest of 16 per cent on £60,000 is almost £10,000 a year. That is a vast improvement. Tax should be paid by anyone earning £10,000 a year. The working man has to pay tax on his earnings over £2,000 a year. Why should someone earning £10,000 a year not pay tax?

Land division takes far too long. I know investigations have to take place and one visit by the Commissioners is not always enough. A thorough investigation must take place and, of course, that takes time. It takes time to have a proper look at the area and to give justice. I would not condemn the Commissioners for not dividing land overnight. But after five or six years the land should be divided. Surely the results should be known by then.

When farmers get additional land from the Land Commission the agricultural officers should be consulted and asked to draw up a plan for the whole farm. If a farmer will not agree to a plan being drawn up, then the land should not be given to him. In recent years there has been an improvement in farm plans but for years previous many farmers, because of inability to draw up plans, let their farms go to ruin. Eventually, they were either sold or again taken over. Therefore, it is very necessary to have a plan before a farmer is granted any additional land. I compliment the staff of the Land Commission because I know the abuse they get from some people who do not accept what they are told. It is when we make the second or third representation to them that they understand that we may have something worthy of consideration.

Miss Walsh

As a member of Wicklow County Committee of Agriculture I openly compaigned for the abolition of the land bond system and I could not let this opportunity pass without making a contribution to this debate. I intend to be brief because much of what I intended saying has been said already by Senators on both sides.

I am pleased that there is general agreement on the acceptance of this Bill. I congratulate the Minister on bringing this Bill before the House and I join in the tributes paid to him regarding the sentiments he expressed in his preliminary statement:

My own attitude to the bonds is well known. I would be happy to be rid of them but my intention is to phase them out as rapidly as resources of the Exchequer permit.

This statement, which will be on the record, will be held and used in evidence against the Minister. Knowing the Minister as I do I am sure he intends to honour this statement.

I should like to compliment the Minister on the unprecedented progress he has made in his 21 months in office. It amazes and amuses me to hear Senators on the other side of the House having the temerity to call for immediate and radical action when one considers their performance over the past 16 years while in office. Wishful thinking is not enough to get rid of anything, one must do tangible work. This Minister has come to grips with the problem and is now on the road to success; at least we can see a light in the end of the tunnel.

We all desire to see the end of the land bond system but it would be naive in the extreme to think, under present economic conditions, that by a wave of the magic wand all our ills could be dispensed with overnight, that the money would fall off the bushes. I am not so stupid as to think that this can be done. The previous Government had many years to make progress in this direction but it has taken the present Minister only 21 months to come to grips with it. For that we owe him a debt of gratitude.

I should like to refer to the farm retirement scheme. We know that the people who regard themselves as small farmers are a very distinctive conservative class who do not readily give up whatever line of action they or their predecessors used. It is difficult to get this farm retirement scheme across to those people but now the scheme is catching on and the small farmers are seeing the folly of their ways. In my own area in recent months there were applications from people one would least expect. People who were satisfied to eke out an existence are now willing to avail of the farm retirement scheme.

Some speakers expressed amazement that 46,500 small farmers require more land. If the holdings of many of those farmers were increased and made viable many of the problems of public representatives would be eliminated. It would also eliminate their having to be subsidised by dole or having to resort to part-time farming. This is not on under EEC conditions. The day of the part-time or the non-viable holding is gone and I do not shed any tears over that. The machinery for the division of land is in need of streamlining. I hope the Minister will expedite the division of land. We have a situation where farms are being set for years after they are bought by the Land Commission. The division of them is being help up by one or two persons. Some method must be devised, whether it be compulsory or otherwise, to make those farmers toe the line. It is not fair to farmers who need the land to make their holdings viable, particularly farmers with young families who are trying to live in these hard times on uneconomic holdings, that one or two can hold up a whole scheme. The Minister should give attention to this.

I welcome the terms of the Bill and I congratulate the Minister on introducing it. I am confident from the sentiments expressed on both sides of the House and from the Minister in his opening statement that we can expect an end to the land bond system in the not too distant future.

Minister for Lands (Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick,

Cavan): I wish to thank the Seanad for the reception given to this Bill which, by and large, has been welcomed by both sides of the House. It has got a reasonable and a realistic debate. I am glad the Seanad availed of this opportunity to discuss Land Commission problems and Land Commission policy in general. It is not very often that the Seanad, unless on the Appropriation Bill, has an opportunity for a discussion like this and Senators are right to avail of it even though they might not have been strictly within the terms of reference of the Bill. It is a Bill to provide money for the purchase of land and they were right to avail of the opportunity to discuss the expenditure of that money.

On 14th March, 1973—late at night—I was asked by a representative of the media in the corridors of this House what were my objectives in relation to my Department, with particular reference to the Land Commission. On that occasion I said I would like to abolish land bonds and cut out delays in the Land Commission. I like to think that, even in the couple of years since taking office, I have done something towards achieving both those objectives.

I believe the Seanad accepts that a worthwhile improvement has been made in the provision of cash for the purpose of land and anything which I shall say now will be to demonstrate that improvement has taken place. In the budget of 1972-73, a sum of £225,000 was provided for the purchase of land in cash; of that £100,000 was transferred from the salaries subhead of the Vote for the Department; in other words, only £120,000 was provided in that year. In the budget of 1973-74, which was the first budget introduced by this Government—of course the Government had to provide that money—£1 million was provided for the purchase of land in cash. For the nine months of 1974 £2,250,000 was provided for the purchase of land in cash. For the year 1975, there is available to the Land Commission as a result of what has been provided and the carry-over from the previous year, a sum of £3,800,000 for the purchase of land in cash by the Land Commission. According to any standards, in the prevailing economic climate, that is a big improvement. Elsewhere, when I mentioned those figures, it was suggested that, because of inflation and the increase in the cost of land, what I was talking about was not really significant and it had not shown really an increased purchase of land in cash than previously. Therefore, I looked into the acreage of land which was acquired before and after. I want to put on the record of the House the acreage purchased for cash in the last two years and in the previous two years.

In 1971-72, the Land Commission purchased 1,586 acres in cash; in 1972-73, they purchased 1,528 acres in cash. For the year 1973-74 the acreage bought by the Land Commission in cash increased to 4,437 acres. For the nine months April to December, 1974, the Land Commission purchased 4,619 acres in cash. They are not percentages; they are the actual figures, both in cash and in acreage. I want to put it to the House and to the country that that is a real step towards phasing out land bonds.

I should like to abolish land bonds altogether and am moving towards that end. A very strong case was made by several Senators today for the abolition of land bonds, especially in cases of small holders who have land taken from them. I should like to move towards that end, and believe I am so doing. On the other hand, I believe that the land bond system might be kept to deal with speculators and, perhaps, discourage speculation. I believe that any people who come in and purchase, as a speculation, land which is wanted for the relief of congestion, do not deserve to be encouraged nor do they deserve a lot of sympathy. I will give one classic example of what I have in mind. A farm in Westmeath containing 329 acres was purchased in 1972 for £77,000. The Land Commission are taking over that land in a few weeks time at a cost of £164,000. The purchaser who was a non-residential gentleman bought the farm in 1972 for £77,000 and is selling it to the Land Commission this year for £164,000. He will be paid in 16 per cent land bonds. I think he is doing very well. As a matter of fact, I would not shed any tears if he was being paid in 12½ per cent land bonds. The compulsory system of acquiring land is absolutely necessary to prevent this sort of speculation and the system of payment in land bonds is adequate.

I shall deal in a general way with delays in the Land Commission. Delays are frustrating. I should like to see land acquired by the Land Commission divided quickly. Certainly, I do regard anything more than two years as not being reasonable. I would ask Senators, when discussing this matter, to be realistic also. Senator Killilea, speaking a short time ago, advocated in one breath that land should be divided immediately it was acquired by the Land Commission and, in the following sentences, advocated that it should be let by the Land Commission on some kind of long-term basis. You cannot have it both ways. My opinion is that it would be wrong to let it run three or four years for tillage while there were small farmers around anxious to acquire it permanently.

I should like to put the record straight so far as delays are concerned because some Members of the Opposition, especially those who spoke after lunch and who were not here during the morning, were critical of the Land Commission and of the delays there. I agree that delays are undesirable but I want to put on the record of the House that when I became Minister for Lands I found, for some reason I failed to understand, there were 20 vacancies on the outdoor staff of the Land Commission. Inspectors on the outdoor staff had either resigned or had died and they had not been replaced. That, perhaps, might help to explain why it was possible in 1972-73 to transfer £100,000 from salaries subhead to the purchase of land. Naturally, with 20 vacancies on the outdoor staff, there were bound to be unnecessary delays. I am glad to tell the House that these vacancies have now been filled and that young inspectors have been recruited to fill the 20 vacancies. It was not possible to secure 20 employees immediately but the outdoor staff is now almost at full strength. There is a seminar going on at present and it is being attended by inspectors from the outdoor staff to discuss ways and means of speeding up division of land, and I hope it will be successful.

There seems to be an opinion abroad that there is a change in policy in the Land Commission in regard to those who qualify for land. This appears from Senator Killilea's speech, and it behoves people who speak on such matters to acquaint themselves of the facts before they speak. Otherwise, not alone may they be misleading the House, but they may be misleading the country. Senator Killilea said that only 3 per cent of the farmers in Galway could be regarded as potential development farmers and he seemed to think from that that only 3 per cent of the farmers in Galway were qualified to get land, certainly land acquired under the retirement scheme. I want to tell the House that, with the exception of land acquired under the retirement scheme, there is no change in Land Commission policy. It is true to say that land acquired under the retirement scheme must be offered to development farmers in the first instance if they are in need of land. If they do not require the land it will be offered to other farmers who can make the best of it.

Senator Killilea seemed to think Directives 159 and 160 would apply. Again, I want to put on the record of this House fairly and squarely that these directives were inherited by this Government and that they were submitted to the previous Government for approval and observations before they left office. Both Directive No. 159, which deals with farm modernisation, and Directive No. 160, which deals with the retirement of farmers, were adopted by the EEC Commission in April, 1972. I know from the records of my Department that Directive No. 160 was submitted to the Government and through the Government to the Department of Lands before it was implemented in April, 1972, and that the Department of Lands and the Minister for Lands were invited to express their views on it and had an opportunity of making a case for or against it. It is unreasonable, then, that either the Opposition spokesman on Agriculture or Lands should come into this House and criticise these directives and say that they are working to the detriment of our farmers, because the Fianna Fáil Government did nothing to amend them before they were adopted by the Commission in 1972. Since that time no opportunity has been given to the present Government to have them amended. Such an opportunity will present itself when the common agricultural policy is being revised in the not-too-distant future.

I do not believe these directives are as faulty as they are said to be. Directive No. 160, with which I am familiar, is not faulty. It contains all the machinery to enable farmers to retire from agriculture with dignity and with financial security, so that their land may be made available to other farmers. There is one criticism I would make and that is that farmers who are letting their land do not qualify under this directive. I think it would be wrong to apply this directive or the retirement scheme drafted under it in a blanket fashion to all people who are letting their lands and who would otherwise come within the scheme. I believe that there are many farmers otherwise occupied both here and abroad who are letting their lands and who should not get pensions from the State or pensions contributed to by the State. There are cases of farmers letting their lands because of ill-health or some other valid reason, but still living on their farms. There is a case to be made for such farmers and I think it should have been made in 1972 to remedy this situation. But I would not be in favour of giving a farmer who is working in a town or in a city or even in another country a bonus for selling his land nor would I give him a pension.

As regards the farmer who is unable to work his land because of ill-health or some other reason and is still living on his farm and has no other income, I would be in favour of dealing with that man in a generous way, and if I get an opportunity of including him in the scheme I shall do so.

Mr. McAuliffe

And the widow?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): That would follow. Many points have been raised by Senators and if I were to go into all of them it would take too much time. I want to say that I have confidence in the Land Commission to divide land fairly now as in the past. Such research as I have done on files since I went to the Department of Lands has proved to me that there have been no abuses and I am glad to join with Senators on both sides of the House who say that.

The Land Commission are an autonomous body, the four commissioners are independent. They are appointed by the Government as judges are appointed. It goes without saying that the Government cannot tell judges how to decide cases and it would be a bad day for Ireland if they could. Neither can the Government, nor I as Minister for Lands, tell the land commissioners what land they are to acquire or, having acquired that land, can I tell them to whom they are to give it. It would be a bad day for Ireland if I could. It would be an impossible position and I am afraid I would have to emigrate. It is true that I can direct the attention of the Land Commission to land and ask them to serve a section 40 notice on it and to investigate it, but the decision rests with them whether they will or will not take it. It certainly is a matter for them as to whom they will give it when they have acquired it. Needless to say if any abuses were to be seen they would be dealt with. I am glad to say that there are no abuses and that I have confidence in the Land Commission.

Senator Keegan made a point in connection with section 40 notices; he seemed to be against them and suggested that people who bought land and paid a deposit and auctioneer's fees lost the auctioneer's fees. The type of case that he has in mind could, I think, only have occurred if the individual in question purchased the land after a section 40 notice had been served. In that case he would have noticed that the Land Commission were interested in the land before he bought it and would have known he was taking that risk. Senator Keegan must have had some stale cases in mind or some cases that occurred some years ago because he will be aware that purchasers do not now pay auctioneers' fees. The law was amended in that respect about 18 months ago so that situation could not now arise.

Senator Keegan also suggested that there should be a land bank set up to enable small farmers to finance their own purchase of land. Senator McCartin said that when farmers come to him to get a farm acquired the first thing he asks them is whether they cannot buy it themselves. I must say that I entirely agree with him and I very often do the same myself. If a man who has already a small farm and wants to buy another small farm is a progressive farmer doing a good job the Agricultural Credit Corporation will come in and buy the land for him.

Senator Dolan had some complimentary things to say about me and I am grateful to him for his reception of the Bill and for his remarks in reference to my efforts in general. He raised the question of individuals selling the land secretly to the Forestry Division of my Department to the exclusion of neighbouring farmers who would wish to buy it. The Forestry Division of my Department do not purchase land compulsorily. They have compulsory powers to purchase land but they never exercise them. All the land bought by the Forestry Division is bought on a voluntary basis. It is true that some farmers for some reason or another best known to themselves would rather sell land to the Forestry Division than to their neighbours even if their neighbours were to give them more for it. Senator Dolan knows that and I know it. It does not reflect any great credit on the people who behave in that way but it is a fact.

I still do not think that any land which could be usefully used in agriculture by neighbours is acquired by the Department of Lands for forestry and that the neighbours are deprived of it. There is close co-operation between the Land Commission and the Forestry Division. Land which is being acquired by the Forestry Division under their voluntary powers or on a voluntary basis is inspected by the Land Commission inspectors and if the inspectors come to the opinion that it is land which can properly be used for Land Commission purposes they will take it over. In recent years there has been no such thing as marginal or bad land. Everybody wanted to get their hands on anything that could be described as land for grazing. We came to a decision in regard to such land and, as I say, I think the Land Commission acted fairly and if they thought that the land could properly be used for Land Commission purposes they took it over.

I want to congratulate the new Senators who spoke, Senator Ferris and Senator Codd. Both of them had valuable contributions to make and showed a knowledge of the problems facing small farmers. Both of them wanted to see the end of land bonds and, as far as I am concerned, they are pushing an open door. I think we will get rid of them gradually.

Senator Garrett mentioned what he considered to be a hard luck case but I am afraid I would not regard it as falling exactly into that category. He pointed out the case of somebody who went to England from a small farm. He made good, acquired business interests in England and a public house at home and then bought a farm of approximately 70 acres which was required for the relief of congestion in the immediate vicinity. He did not take up residence on it and had an adjournment given to him by the Land Commission and then had another adjournment and finally the Land Commission are taking it from him. Senator Garrett had great sympathy for that man and thought that he should be paid in cash. I believe that man will do very well.

It would appear from what Senator Garrett has told me and it is three, four or perhaps five years ago since he bought the land and I would imagine the price of it has increased. He will be paid for it in 16 per cent bonds and I have not much sympathy for him. I would not regard that man as a speculator but he is definitely a man who does not need to rely on farming activities to support himself, his wife and family because he has business interests across the water and a farm and other activities at home. I would say that that sort of a man should be discouraged from buying a farm in which he is not going to reside if that farm is required for the relief of congestion and for small farmers in the locality.

Senator Garrett also asked whether the 16 per cent interest would be paid on the nominal value of the bonds. I am glad to say that that is the case and that it always has been the case. The interest, whether it is 4 per cent or 16 per cent, is paid on the nominal value of the bond. He also suggested that the period for redemption should be reduced from 27 years to ten years. Each issue of land bonds has within itself the mechanism which determines the date on which it will be redeemed. In other words, it is the rate of interest that determines the number of years within which the bond must be redeemed. For example, the 4 per cent bond was redeemable only after 66½ years, the 12½ per cent bond was compulsorily redeemable after 32½ years and this current issue must be redeemed not later than 27 years from the date of issue. That is a big improvement. That reduction to 27 years will have the effect of increasing somewhat the price of land to the farmers who get the land but if I or the Minister for Finance were to accept Senator Garrett's suggestion and reduce it drastically to ten years, the price which the farmers would have to be charged for the land under existing policy would be prohibitive. I do not think that that would be desirable or that it was what the Senator had in mind. He probably had not an opportunity of researching it but that is the result that his suggestion would have.

Senator Garrett seemed to be a bit bewildered as to who would get land. He said that there was a school of thought in his county that only commercial farmers would get land. He could not be serious in that because the Land Commission have no obligation to commercial farmers nor will they provide land for them either under the retirement scheme or under their traditional powers. A commercial farmer, as the word suggests, is making a good living out of farming. He is as well off as those engaged in commerce or industry and the Land Commission or the State would have no obligation to him. It is not even true to say that only a development farmer will get land. A development farmer has first claim, and I emphasise first claim, on land surrendered under the retirement scheme. But if there are no development farmers in the area the Land Commission will give the land to those who will make good use of it and who can be brought up to a viable position, such as transitional farmers. Therefore the only change in regard to policy for the allocation of land since we went into Europe is that lands which have come to our hand under the retirement scheme are offered to development farmers if there are such in the first instance. However, if the Land Commission were to do the things that Opposition speakers are talking about we would not be operating the retirement scheme the way we are, we would be waiting to see if there were any development farmers about before we acquired any land. We are not doing that. We are taking all the land under the retirement scheme that is offered to us and if there are only 3 per cent of the farmers of Galway likely to come to development status, as Senator Killilea says, then the farmers who would have always obtained it in Galway will continue to get it. I hope that that puts the Senator's mind at ease.

Mr. Killilea

Not really. The case I am making is that, if a man with 200 acres of land happens to live quite close to where there is a retirement scheme operating he is the first man who is entitled to an additional holding.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I cannot see a farmer with 200 acres of land, unless it is very poor land indeed, falling into the development class. I think that gentleman would most likely be in the commercial class.

Mr. Killilea

No, he is not. The Minister does not understand.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I do understand and I said, when the Senator was not in the House, that if there are any faults in these directives to date he should not be blaming me for them nor should he be blaming the Government.

Mr. McCartin

A man with a 90-acre farm in Leitrim who has 30 cows can fall into the development class and this is with very poor land.

Mr. Killilea

A 250-acre farmer in Galway who is not a dairy farmer will not get in.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I wanted to put it to Senator Killilea that if there are these defects in Directives Nos. 159 and 160—and I do not think there are—he should not blame me for them because those directives were adopted by the EEC Commission in April, 1972, and before they were adopted they were submitted to the former Government, to the former Minister for Agriculture and the former Minister for Lands for their views and opinions and it was open to them to make a case for their amendment.

Mr. Yeats

Of course the Minister appreciates that a directive does not come into operation automatically. The Government have to take steps for bringing in the directive. It is not like a regulation.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Government are bound by the terms of the directive and such regulations as they bring in can only be ones that will conform with the directive.

Mr. Killilea

I did not think the Minister was a person who passed the buck.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I am putting the facts on the record because I am sick, sore and tired for the last few months hearing people who should know better complaining bitterly about these two directives when they did not complain at the time they should have complained.

Mr. Killilea

Better late than never.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Senator Garrett made the valid point about vacant houses. I am very anxious to have vacant houses which are not required by the Land Commission sold or got rid of as quickly as possible and I could not agree more with him. I understand that the policy is that they are offered, in the first instance, to the local authority and if the local authority do not want them they are then offered for sale by public auction or by tender. I certainly will encourage the Land Commission to come to a decision in regard to houses on lands which they acquire with the minimum of delay and if they come to a decision that they do not want them for the purpose of allocation with the land that they should sell them one way or another immediately.

Senator Kilbride was speaking about the land bonds that were in operation many years ago. It is worth putting on the record that since land bonds were first introduced in 1923 they have been used for payment for land acquired to a total of 1,316,000 acres. They have served a purpose fairly well in that regard.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

Not for the people who owned the land.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Maybe this is a bad point but it is a fact that, when I started to take an interest in land bonds a good many years ago, insurance agents were canvassing solicitors and holders of land bonds to ensure against the redemption of land bonds. If the land bonds were not redeemed they were at a loss. In other words, they were standing at a premium of £107 and £108. That is quite a while ago but it is a fact.

Senator Brennan dealt with the Land Commissioners and I think I have dealt with them also. He disagreed with the 11-month system. We all agree that the 11-month system is the worst possible use to which land could be put. We all know that people who take land on the 11-month system take all they can out of it and put as little as possible into it.

I want to thank Senator O'Brien for the many complimentary things he said about me. I was glad to have the opportunity of restoring to Monaghan, Longford and Cavan the half annuities. The Land Bill of 1965 was going through this House when I was a Member of it and I fought for the retention of the half annuities for those three counties without success. I would be less than human if I did not admit that I was glad to have the opportunity in 1973 of making an order to restore these. It did not do them a bit of harm.

Mr. Killilea

We hope.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): We know. Senator Whyte dealt with the cases under the retirement scheme and suggested that it should be operated in such a way that a father who wanted to retire and transfer his farm to his son should qualify for a pension under the scheme. Again, that would be outside the EEC directive because the purpose of the directive is to acquire land for farmers who want more land. I can only say that this Government have done something worthwhile towards encouraging farmers to hand over their farms to their sons at an earlier age. We have reduced the old age pension age from 70 to 67 and we have relaxed drastically the means test for the old age pension. These two things together will encourage fathers to hand over to their sons at least five years earlier than they would previously have done.

Senator Whyte believes there are not now many non-residential farms between 100 and 300 acres. It is not the policy of the Land Commission to interfere with land that is residential, giving employment and being well worked. It would not be in the interest of the country that that should be done.

Senator McCartin made a worthwhile contribution. He said that there is a cloud between myself and the Land Commission. His principal complaint was that there are delays in the Land Commission. He said the most efficient transactions were held out for cash, that there is bound to be less delay for cash transactions than compulsory transactions. To acquire land compulsorily whether for cash or otherwise, entails some delay: it entails visits by inspectors and perhaps a hearing in the Land Commission Court and a hearing before the appeals tribunal on price. He asked who deserved cash. I hope that cash that is available should, as suggested by many Senators on both sides of the House, be applied towards payment for land acquired where it is deserving to do so. I agree with that, but I can see problems in it. Every public representative in the country will think that the case in which he is interested is the only deserving case in the country. Again, that will be a matter for the Land Commission.

Senator McCartin made the point, and I must disagree with him, that he objects to a pension which is paid to a retirement farmer being taken into acount for social welfare benefits. I think it is going too far to exclude that. Up to now, if a man sold his farm for £10,000 and he was at pension age he would not get a pension from the Land Commission or a pension from the Department of Social Welfare. At least now he is getting a worthwhile pension from the Land Commission. If he has to spend his money to pay his debts or buy a house he can qualify for a social welfare pension also.

Senator McCartin also mentioned forestry. I believe it would be a pity to starve the Forestry Division. It would be a pity to encourage people to try to make a living out of land that is obviously unfit for agricultural purposes. I agree with Senator McCartin that land that is suitable for agricultural purposes should be left to agriculture. People should not be encouraged to try to make a living out of land that is obviously not sufficiently productive to give them a living. That is only condemning them to hardship.

Senator Jack Fitzgerald raised the question of farms of a couple of hundred acres changing hands without receiving attention from the Land Commission. I agree that if a farm is wanted for the relief of congestion in an area the time for the Land Commission to get after that farm is when it is offered for sale. That is a reasonably painless time. It is the time when we should get after it and in a good many cases we do get after it. If the attention of the Land Commission is drawn to it at that time I should be surprised if they would not take action. The type of farm that Senator Fitzgerald has in mind is needed for relief of local congestion.

Senator Fitzgerald also complained that while farmers who were resident in County Meath for ten years were charged the full annuities people who came in from other counties had the benefit of half annuities. That is only so if they are migrants and if they are surrendering land in the county from which they came. I think it is reasonable that a man who surrenders land to the Land Commission in exchange for other land should get preferential treatment.

Senator Fitzgerald asked whether the 16 per cent bonds would have the effect of increasing the price of land to smallholders. I would be less than candid with the House if I did not admit that it will. I cannot say the exact effect it will have.

Senator Deasy confirmed that he is satisfied that land is distributed on a fair basis. He suggested that the one mile distance policy should be increased to five miles. I think that is going too far. Proper land structure would not be possible if two parts of a farm are five miles apart; the ideal situation is to have them adjoining. If that is not feasible, then the ideal thing is to have them as near as possible.

A number of Senators made a case for landless men. While there is great sympathy for these men, we can see the absurdity of the case that can sometimes be made. One Senator today made an appeal on behalf of landless men and while still on his feet he asked that the 45-acre policy allotment be increased to 75 acres. He also said that he did not approve of the freeze notices. Short of waving a magic wand, it would not be possible to provide all those things at the same time. The policy is not sacrosanct and it is possible to extend it a little, but a mile is the best yardstick.

Senator McAuliffe pointed out that bonds are not tax free. No income is tax free and I do not think it would be reasonable if they were. I agree with the Senator's remarks that the land should be divided as quickly as possible. He did not think it a reasonable condition that a man should be married before he qualifies for land. I am amazed that there are any bachelor farmers at all, because my short experience in the Land Commission leads me to believe that every farmer, whether he is young or old, looking for land is either engaged to be married or getting married in the immediate future. Married farmers who have dependants have a bigger claim on land than single people.

The subject of commonages was raised by some Senators. It is very difficult to divide commonages by compulsion. If a man will not agree to the division of commonages, it is likely that he will possess himself of a pair of pliers and that will cause more trouble than will be solved. I appeal to public representatives in areas in which there are commonages to act as leaders of public opinion, to encourage the owners to agree to a division of the commonages. I have yet to be convinced that compulsion is a good idea.

I think I have dealt with all the points made. If I interpret the debate properly, the Bill has been accepted by the Seanad. In doing that Senators are showing they are anxious that the work of dividing land should be proceeded with as quickly as possible. These 46,000 viable farmers who can be brought up to an economic standard should be assisted.

I thank the Seanad for its reception of this Bill. I ask them to deal with all Stages today. I can assure the House and the country that the Land Commission are conscious of the necessity for acquiring and dividing land. They will do their best to meet the requirements of people who are worthy of land. I advise people against becoming involved in agitation. I advise people in need of land against becoming involved in organisations or societies that hold themselves out as professional agitators in order to get land. I advise people against picketing, against intimidation of one sort or another because in doing that, they are not helping themselves one iota. They are putting their chances of getting land into jeopardy. They are obstructing the Land Commission and making it difficult for them to operate in that area. They are not acting in their own interests or in the interests of people who are genuinely entitled to land. Some of the ringleaders in this sort of movement are usually people who are not entitled to land. They know they have not a case for getting land. That is why they act in this way. I advise people who are genuinely in need of land to give this sort of organisation the cold shoulder.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.