I support the Bill, which is an enabling Bill to bring about legislation for the creation of additional bonds for the Land Commission — from £105 million to £130 million. Of course, it is understood by all concerned that that does not necessarily mean the expenditure of that amount of money. First, before I make some remarks on the Bill I would like to take this opportunity to offer my congratulations to Deputy Connaughton on his elevation to that office some months ago and to wish him well in the time ahead. I am quite satisfied that this very important matter which we are discussing this morning of land legislation and all that surrounds it, is in very capable hands with Deputy Connaughton as Minister with responsibility for the Land Commission. I am certain that with his knowledge, his commitment and his absolute sincerity in this whole area we can expect results.
It is something we have all talked about over the years but now we hope we will get away from the talking stage in due time and have action. At the commencement I would say to the Minister that in my view it would be unwise to go with too much haste on this very important issue because I believe that all parties concerned must be fully consulted. They must feel that they have been fully and adequately consulted. That is a very important dimension to a situation succeeding where we will have a revision, a review, a reform of the whole area of matters to do with the Land Commission or with a land agency, should such a thing replace the Land Commission.
I am aware, as are other Senators here, of the Minister's recent indications of what his thoughts are on this matter of the Land Commission and their functions. I welcome his foresight in coming out and putting forward something fairly positive, but I would urge a certain amount of caution. I am not talking about undue delay, but I would say that whatever degree of consultation is appropriate would strengthen the whole operation of any legislation when implemented ultimately.
We all know the affairs of the Land Commission and their activities have been very controversial and on many occasion contentious over the last number of years. Some of the criticism has been justified but, I would say, by and large, having regard to the constraints that have been placed on the Land Commission that they have performed their function quite well. There have been weaknesses in their operations, but at the same time they have performed quite well. That is not to say that they do not need revamping or replacement, whichever is the more appropriate. I would say to the Minister that in the event of a new land authority being formed we have within the Land Commission quite a number of very good persons who would provide the expertise necessary for the sort of new agency we talk about. We should not start afresh and say that all that is there is wrong and bring in everything absolutely clean and new.
There is a necessity to increase production from the land to the maximum possible level. There was never such a need for that as at a time when we have this very serious economic recession both nationally and internationally. For that reason we must make certain of the best and maximum utilisation of all our land. We know clearly, and the Minister fully appreciates this as a person involved in the farming scene, that a lot of our land is not properly utilised at present. This is something we must overcome. The high unemployment at the moment demands from us that in the national interest we make certain that this natural national resource will be fully and totally utilised and that there will be no wastage in its utilisation.
We must set about having, as a very firm objective, the maximum number of farm family units employed on the land, having regard to the economic nature of things and the returns from farming. If we get increased agricultural output from the land and the provision of adequate incomes for more people than at present, we will relieve significantly the unemployment figure of 180,000 which is fast approaching the 200,000 mark.
There are a number of obstacles to our achieving the maximum from the land. These could be summarised under a few headings. First, we have a large area of land held by persons who, due to old age, ill health or poor family structure, are unable or unwilling to farm the land sufficiently. These are very major obstacles to the progress with land utilisation that we otherwise could do. We have poor land structure. We have excess fragmentation of holdings, and this problem applies especially to the west of Ireland but also to other areas. We are not talking about a west of Ireland problem — we are talking about the problem nationally.
We also have under-capitalisation. Finance is a major national problem. We talked about it yesterday evening in a broader context. We also have the problem of lack of education and training of persons engaged in farming. The Minister and his advisers must take very serious account in any land policy that is being evolved of three parties. We have the party getting the land, the party who owns the land and we have the State, acting on behalf of the people, as manager of affairs. The importance of the individual who owns the land could not be over-emphasised. Where a person has ownership we should not do anything to impinge seriously on that. Any development that is made along th lines of land going to a land agency or Land Commission with absolute co-operation and goodwill, and without coercion or pressure of an undue nature, must be welcome. Our approach must be one of incentive. The person who needs land has very definite right to get land. The State has a right to make sure that our 11 million acres of land is utilised to the best advantage. From the Minister's remarks recently we are expecting that a new land agency will be evolved. What I have been saying would be appropriate either to a new land agency or authority or to the Land Commission in a revamped, reconstituted way.
There is a very serious fall in the mobility of land. The amount of land the Land Commission are purchasing on an annual basis has dwindled very significantly from what the position was a few years ago. This leads to a situation when the Land Commission in some counties are approaching the time where they will have virtually no land for distribution.
We now come to the kernel of the problem, which is land bonds. Land bonds should be departed from because land bonds are not in any way attractive to persons who might otherwise be considering negotiating with the Land Commission with regard to the disposal of their land. Land bonds have a number of inherent weaknesses. They are not as attractive as cash, but apart from that there is no guarantee that at the time of payment a lot of legal delays will not have taken place. I would urge that we replace the land bonds by cash payments. If the Land Commission are to make headway, land bonds have little or no place in the formula.
Another important point is the size of holdings. The 1965 Land Act has ordained that 45 adjusted acres was the viable unit. I would suggest very strongly that this is not a viable unit in 1983. Not fewer than 60 adjusted acres should be considered: 65 adjusted acres might be the size of unit we should be talking about. I emphasise "adjusted acres" because there would be a significant difference between adjusted acres and areas of land. With the way that costs have gone up in recent years and margins have become very narrow, 45 adjusted acres do not meet the situation today.
In Ireland we have late inheritance. Twenty-three per cent of the farmers in Ireland are over 65 years of age. The equivalent figure in Holland is 7.6 per cent. Generally speaking, people cannot give of their best when they have passed the age of 65. There are, of course, exceptions to that rule and there are older people who make very valuable contributions. By and large, particularly in the area of farming, which by its very nature involves a lot of physical work, people will not give the output or return that could be given by others. We cannot suddenly go along to these 23 per cent of farmers and say, "Sorry, move over". We must make certain that all the needs and aspirations of these people are taken care of.
Another major problem that is bedevilling the structure of farming is that 63,000 farmers in this country are living on small holdings which are not viable. For the benefit of those people who might believe that all farmers are big farmers with many acres of land, those 63,000 farmers are farming 40 acres or less each. In many cases these 40 acres are of a sub-standard quality — they are not in any way good acres of land.
This problem relates to western type areas, the Connacht counties, perhaps Kerry, west Cork, parts of Limerick and parts of the 12 western counties. That situation is more acute in these areas but, again, it has relevance all over the country. Up to recent times there was an outlet to resolve the problem of the small farm and low returns these small holdings were giving after the people had emigrated to England, America or elsewhere. That resolved that difficulty.
Over the years the Land Commission, though they have been criticised, handled quite a lot of land. In the last 50 years they put through their books 1.5 million acres. That is a substantial area of land.
We have another type of land which is very important, that is, the areas of commonage. A lot of this is bogland and a lot of it turbary. That land is lying there and is totally unused at present. If something could be done to make certain that it will be put into use there are many people who would be very glad to use it for turf cutting purposes at a time when fuel costs are so high, and so on. That is something which should be looked at.
The stamp duty, as it pertains to Land Commission situations is based on figures stretching to 1974, and that needs to be reviewed at this point. The 1965 Land Act obviously needs to be updated and brought into line with 1983 needs. We have in a great many cases a lack of title to farms. I am aware, and I am sure other Senators here are aware, of a number of holdings that have passed from generation to generation without ever being owned by the occupiers. I came across a case recently where two generations had actually gone by and neither of those two generations had owned the land. It is still in the ownership of generations before them. Perhaps the number so affected is not that high, but it certainly exists and it ought not to exist at all. That absence of current title is due to slowness on the part of legal people to get on with the job. A lot of it is perhaps due to the fact that some individuals have not taken the initiative themselves to get things going.
This whole area of land and its allocation is an extremely emotive one. I would say to the Minister that regardless of what sort of problems it presents to him in the context of time, within limits, meetings with people and organisations such as the IFA, Macra na Feirme, the ICMSA and indeed the central organisation of co-operatives, the ICOS, should be arranged because he ought to have those with him before he embarks upon anything that might be considered final.
The land of Ireland is often referred to as a wealth, something that farmers have and can dispose of at will, without any problems. I take this opportunity again to state that the land to the farmer is no more than the tools of his trade, no more than the tools of trade the carpenter will use for his business or the doctor for his business, or whatever. The farmers of Ireland are not in the business of selling land. They are in the business of farming land. Therefore, what counts as far as farmers are concerned is what return they can get from their holdings, not what that holding is worth at any given time. That is an important point.
Land transfers would need to be helped a bit, perhaps more by looking into this whole question of inheritance tax. In the recent budget, under a marriage settlement arrangement there was a departure from a zero tax liability to approximately 4 per cent. That is one that ought to be looked at again. The whole question of land acquisitions tax, of inheritance tax, needs to be looked at to expedite land transfers. We must bear in mind that since 80 per cent of the land in Ireland is transferred or passed on through inheritance, it points out how important this factor is. The benefits of the relief of stamp duty for a period of two years for those under 35 years which was granted in the 1982 Land Act should be extended. It applies to persons under 35 years of age. Having regard to our particular problem or the age structure of farmers, perhaps that age of 35 years ought to be a little more flexible and perhaps persons over that age ought to be considered, at least in a phasing-in period. I would urge that.
I hold the view that capital acquisitions tax and exemption thresholds need to be lowered progressively, starting with the age of the donor of the land, which is 66. This change could be conceivably brought to a stage when the donor would exceed the age of 72. There should be a graduation from there on. There are many other aspects with regard to transfers which are too lengthy to go into.
The farmers' retirement scheme is something which has been totally and utterly ineffective. Fewer than 600 persons have availed of that scheme, and that speaks for itself. The land retirement scheme is such that the reward from it at present just is not on. It was not attractive for people to be participants, and the Land Commission would substantiate that very firmly. We need either a very positively revamped farm retirement scheme, or some scheme to achieve what the farm retirement scheme was designed to achieve in the first instance. We must also have a leasing system. The Minister has talked about this and I am glad of that because, frankly, for many farmers there is no point in suggesting they can pay even the present depressed price for land, depressed in relation to the artificially high prices, may I hastily add, of 1978-79. With prices of £1,500 or, perhaps, £2,000 per acre for small areas of land, there is no way a small farmer with 30 or 35 acres can acquire an additional ten or 15 acres to bring him into the area of viability, unless he gets it in some subsidised manner or in a lease form.
The EEC directive on land must be modified to allow for greater flexibility in the selection of suitable purchasers, allottees and lessees. I mean that in the context of some sort of a farm retirement scheme, or something that takes its place. We are very much tied to the EEC at present and therefore we must take very definite cognisance of that situation. The retirement pension should be related to the non-contributory old-age pension rates. The capital value of the holding should not be the yardstick, but the actual income returnable. There is a need to evolve a formula along those lines.
With regard to land purchase and control of land purchase, there are certain suggestions with which I would not agree entirely. They could be fairly dangerous and not produce very good results. About 90,000 acres of land change hands each year on the land market. Over a ten year period we are talking, roughly, about one million acres. That is not an insignificant figure. We are talking about 10 per cent of the land of Ireland changing hands over a ten-year period. That can have an impact on the whole structural system. While we have not got positive and stringent restrictions, we need some measure of control in this area. I would like to think that owners of land would be coming to the State through the land agencies or the Land Commission, asking the State to take an interest in their situation, rather than the State coming in and forcing their will on people. That is important.
Full-time farmers must be treated differently from those who are not full-time farmers, and those who are not farmers at all. The Government White Paper on land policy in December 1980 defined a farmer as being a person obtaining at least 75 per cent of his income from farming, or obtaining at least 40 per cent of his income from farming, with his income from other sources not exceeding the comparable income. Many of our farmers have off-farm employment at present. Just because they have some off-farm employment, they should not be deemed to be non-farmers or classified as part-time farmers.
I am aware from public comments that the Minister sees major changes in the pipeline. I agree with the points he raised, while expressing a few reservations about too much pressure being exerted — if my interpretation is correct — on people who might not be inclined to move. I would prefer to adopt a persuasive approach and make it attractive for them to so do. I appreciate that, with such an important national resource as land, you cannot play too softly or too easily. Nevertheless in the long run progress will be made.
I have talked about the size of holdings. I referred to fragmentation and I should like to highlight the very serious problems which arise where a farmer has his farm in two, three, four, five, or six different places. It leads to endless problems with regard to rights of way, fencing, and so on.
