Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 17 Jul 1969

Vol. 241 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Land Bond Bill, 1969: Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

This is a short Bill relatively free from technical complexities and it should not cause any great difficulties for the House. The Bill has three purposes which I propose to discuss individually to facilitate consideration by Deputies.

The first purpose as provided for in section 1 is to make a further increase in the total amount of land bonds which may be created and issued by the Minister for Finance for the purpose of making advances and paying purchase moneys in respect of land taken over by the Land Commission for the purposes of the land settlement programme. Deputies will be aware that we have had similar increases on two occasions since the original limit of £10 million was imposed by section 6 (1) of the Land Bond Act, 1934. That limit of £10 million was increased to £15 million by section 7, Land Act, 1953, and to £25 million by section 2, Land Bond Act, 1964.

Land bonds required to make advances and to meet the cost of land taken over by the Land Commission are created by the Minister for Finance, usually on an annual basis, as they are required by the Land Commission. The latest order made by the Minister for Finance on 23rd June, 1969, creating a series of £100,000 land bonds has brought the total amount created under various land bond orders to £25 million, that is the total amount currently authorised by statute. It is, therefore, necessary to provide legislative authority for the creation of a further series. Having regard to experience over the last few years, it is desirable on this occasion to provide authority for the creation of a further series of bonds amounting to £15 million. It is reckoned that such an amount should provide sufficient bonds for a period of about seven years.

Deputies will appreciate that land prices continue to rise and maintenance of the land settlement programme, even at its existing level, would necessitate an expanded supply of land bonds. But this is only part of the increase required. The Government, as announced in the Third Programme: Economic and Social Expansion, is committed to an intensification and acceleration of the work of land acquisition and division, especially in small farming areas. I know there will be general sympathy with the work of improving the lot of small farmers by providing them with sufficient additional land to put them on a viable basis and I believe the House would not wish to see this work delayed in any way because of lack of land bonds.

I could remind the House, in fact, that the Land Bond Act, 1964, which increased the previous limit by £10 million, proved non-contentious and got a speedy passage in both Houses. Apart from land purchased or acquired for land bonds the Land Commission are buying an increasing area of land each year for cash. Deputies will be aware that the Land Act, 1965, removed the restrictive application of section 27 of the Land Act, 1950, and as a consequence purchases for cash may now be made by the Land Commision for all the purposes of the Land Acts. For the current year, a record sum of £600,000 has been provided for these purchases, representing an increase of no less than £170,000 over the amount provided last year. In the case of cash also it will be our desire to provide a constantly increasing supply of money so that the Government's policy of speeding up the work of land reform can be implemented as announced in the Third Programme.

The second purpose of the Bill, as provided for in section 2, is to simplify the land bond system by changing existing and future land bonds from numbered bonds in three denominations to unnumbered bonds in £1 units. Under the existing system, land bonds have heretofore been issued in numbered denominations of £100, £10 and £1 and these denominations once registered cannot be subdivided. This system is now becoming very cumbersome and is giving rise to difficulties such as:—

(i) On transfer forms the numbers of all bonds or groups of bonds for transfer must be shown, and this can involve considerable work for stockbrokers, solicitors and banks acting as agents for land bond holders.

(ii) It is often impossible for a holder to divide a land bond holding as the holder may wish. For instance a holding of £1,000 in land bonds made up of ten £100 bonds cannot be equally divided into three or four equal parts.

(iii) It is difficult for trustees to acquire a particular amount of bonds owing to a scarcity of £1 or £10 bonds available.

By changing the bonds into unnumbered bonds of £1 units these difficulties will be removed. The proposed change has been welcomed by the committees of the various Stock Exchanges in which dealings in land bonds take place.

The third purpose of the Bill, as provided for in section 3, is to authorise the transfer of registers of land bonds from Chase & Bank of Ireland (International) Limited to the Bank of Ireland.

Since the inception of the land bond system the registers have been kept by the former National City Bank, which since 1926 was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank of Ireland. Since the re-organisation of the bank by the acquisition by the Chase Manhattan Bank of New York of 50 per cent of the Share Capital the character and type of work being performed by the bank makes it inappropriate that the work of registration of land bonds should be performed by it. This work is accordingly being transferred to the head office of the Bank of Ireland, where the registers of most other Government Stocks are kept.

This Bill will authorise the provision of funds in the form of land bonds to enable the Land Commission to press ahead with the land reform programme and will also simplify the clerical procedures for registering and transferring the bonds. I can commend it to the House on this basis.

The Minister stated that this Bill is simple, but any Bill that deals with land, though it may be simple, is very contentious. On reading through the Bill one finds that there does not seem to be a lot in it. I welcome the increase in the amount of money being made available to the Land Commission because this, I hope, will speed up land division in the various areas. This matter of land division has been a very contentious point indeed down the years.

The big objection, the big "crib," if you like, about land bonds is that anybody selling his farm to the Land Commission says he does not want land bonds. The reason for that is that people cannot sell land bonds at par and if they want to sell immediately in order to be able to purchase another farm, they cannot get the transfer sufficiently quickly. On the whole, in practice it is found that when one sells lands bonds one loses money. I do not know what the quotation for them is today but a short time ago they were well down.

They are 91 now.

It is impossible to explain to a farmer—and many farmers come to us on this matter — that he will get only £91 for every £100 he has in land bonds. He thinks that is most unfair. His idea is that if the Land Commission want his land badly enough they should give cash. That is reasonable, particularly in the case of compulsory acquisition. People whose land has been acquired compulsorily should be treated more kindly than those who offer their land to the Land Commission.

Another question I should like to put to the Minister is whether land bonds are acceptable in lieu of death duties. They should be so acceptable, and at their face value, not at their Stock Exchange rate. Section 2 is an improvement because all denominations will be the same in future and the disparity in the past has been tricky and a source of inconvenience. I think section 3 is simply a tidying-up section, if I understand the Minister correctly. This section will make for a speeding up of matters in both the Land Commission and the banks.

I urge the Minister to think seriously about the whole system of payment by land bonds. It is the one thing that is holding up the sale, acquisition and division of land. I know many people who would sell willingly for cash but who would think twice before selling for land bonds.

We welcome the increase in the number of land bonds for the purpose of the acquisition of land because it is very necessary to expedite the work of the Land Commission. I ask the Minister to give particular consideration to the case of people who offer land for public auction and who, having sold it at public auction, find the Land Commission entering the land and proceeding to acquire it despite the fact that it has been sold already by public auction. The vendor often has entered into prior commitments, financial and otherwise, on the strength of the sale and in the expectation of the sale being completed in 28 days. I ask the Minister to provide that such people be paid in cash rather than in land bonds in order that they may honour the commitments they have entered into.

I was not here when the Minister began his speech and therefore I do not know if he indicated what the percentage will be on the new land bonds. I have been informed that it will be nine per cent. If Government bonds have to come on the market at such a high rate of interest there is something wrong. There is something wrong if the bonds are not acceptable on the ordinary free market. That is the case.

I concur with Deputy Hogan O'Higgins. She spoke of the problem of trying to dispose of land bonds quickly, an almost impossible task. What is happening is that people are selling farms with the idea of getting a better type of farm — perhaps the areas in which they live are not suitable. They sell farms with the idea of purchasing other farms and when they offer the old farms to the Land Commission they have in view other farms which they would prefer. In the first instance, they cannot dispose of their land bonds because they are not stable. I know of many instances of people who sell farms but who cannot get a transfer of the land bonds. They are told that the bonds are there and that they are payable at a certain rate of interest. That is no use to these people, they want cash in order to be able to pay for their new farms. I have known cases in which people have had to employ counsel to bring their cases before the courts to try and get transfers. It has happened in Wexford on numerous occasions.

It is a pity that when the Minister was bringing in this Bill he did not introduce a provision which would to some extent alleviate the high charge on land. There is a very high charge on land in the eastern part of the country. I believe we have been subsidising the west—I am not quite sure— for a great many years, uncomplainingly because we are good-natured people in the east. A lot of people who sold farms and were offered bonds found that when the Land Commission took over the land to distribute it the rate of interest was very high. I know that high charges fall back on the Land Commission but the rate on land is so high that people are refusing this land. There has been a suggestion that the refusal rate is only one per cent. It may be that people are not refusing land in the first instances. It is only when they discover what they are being charged that they reject it. Land is being accepted but it is not being retained. There are innumerable people in my constituency who are not prepared to accept land at the present rate. It should have been possible for the Minister to introduce in a Bill such as this some method whereby the heavy charge on land of £8 an acre could be subsidised and thus brought down to a lower level.

As I have said earlier, we in the east are good-natured people and we have been subsidising the people in the west for years and they get it. Surely much cheaper than we get it. Surely the Minister can do something whereby the charge on land could be reduced. I do not know whether that entails bringing in an extra Bill or not, but the fact remains that land bonds are not doing what they were intended to do. As the Minister stated, the purcpose of this Bill is to acquire and divide more land. That is practically the sole purpose of this Bill, and the Minister requires more money for that purpose. I have tried to point out the snags in regard to this very laudable policy of taking over and dividing land. There is no reason why on the Committee Stage of this Bill the Minister should not introduce some amendments to meet the points I have raised.

I should like the Minister also to deal with the interminable delays in paying for land. If anybody else buys a farm he pay a deposit and when the farm is finally taken over all the money is paid over. In the case of land bonds there is no deposit paid. We are told the bonds are deposited in the name of the individual and one of the land commissioners or somebody like that. The person has the right to draw the rate of interest but even when the farm is finally transferred to him, he does not get the land bonds. Could the Minister explain to the House why he does not get the land bonds. If the bonds are freely available to the Government for the purpose of purchasing land why should they hold on to them? Why do they not hand them over immediately? I am sure that is a problem which is not peculiar to Wexford but which exists in other constituencies as well.

I intended on the Committee Stage to raise the first question Deputy Esmonde asked but perhaps it would save time if I join with him in asking at what rate it is proposed to issue these bonds now? As I understand it, the original 1934 Act has a specific provision in it that the value of the bonds is to remain at or near par for some reasonable time after they are issued. The trouble is that when a farm is taken over the person does not get possession of the bonds and therefore you cannot sell them and very often their value goes down and down.

As regards the rate of interest, I noticed that last week in London some of the prime companies in Britain were paying 9? per cent for money for one year and getting only about £99 15s, so that rate is roughly ten per cent. When this Land Bond Act of 1934 was passed the original bonds were issued at 4½ per cent and there were bonds issued at as low as 3½ per cent. In fact, if I might make so bold as to advise the Minister, you have got away from this system through what was done by the second inter-Party Government, by the purchase of land for cash when they had put in that small tentative sum of £50,000 a year which in the present year is nearly £1 million.

In view of the schemozzle that is going on in the money market in recent years, why not drop this system altogether and pay for such land as is taken over? Of course this is a method of creating a bit of credit for the State. Personally I am no great lover of land division. I do not think it has achieved its objectives, for various reasons. For example, the farm that was regarded as an economic holding in the 'thirties has long since ceased to be an economic holding in the eyes of most people. By now the Department of Lands must certainly have handled nearly all the land in this country at least once, and certain parts of it not once but twice or three times. This reminds me of the fact that the Romans divided the whole of the land of Italy in a period of six years. I think it was in the Act of 1881 that we started this but certainly we started in a big way under the 1923 Act. There may be technical reasons for sticking to this system but it is time for the Department of Lands, if they are going to continue land division, to go over entirely to that subhead in the vote for the Department of Lands where the payments are made in cash.

The Department of Lands being an extremely careful, legal Department are going to issue these bonds so that they will be at or near par subsequent to issue, but that really means 9 or 10 per cent which is completely out of line with what was originally intended in this connection. It might be no harm if the Minister considered whether this system should not be abandoned altogether.

I should like to support Deputy O'Donovan's suggestion, and the suggestion that was made by other speakers on this side of the House, that it would probably be better to pay for land in cash instead of in land bonds. I know from my own experience of meeting people that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction about being paid in land bonds for land. I should like to quote two letters from recent editions of a Sunday newspaper which will bear out the point we are making. The first letter is from the Sunday Independent of 6th July, 1969:

My intention was to sell in the ordinary way and I had instructed my auctioneer accordingly. But the Land Commission moved in, started normal negotiations with prospective buyers and after some cheeseparing haggling, they gave £18,000—in Land Bonds.

Even before the Bonds were put in my name their price had fallen. Today they are quoted at 68 approx. I have £12,000 Bonds left to provide an income, that is, £720 p.a. (less income tax). Occasional demands require that I cash Bonds with, of course, a corresponding reduction in income. But for every £136 cash I need I must cash £200 Bonds... my £12,000 Bonds are worth £8,160, a loss of £3,840 (and a prospect of even greater loss) When will this stark dishonesty cease?

The Land Commission claim that they give market value. They do, nominally. Had I been left free to sell I would have got £17,500 in cash. (That was in fact an offer until knowledge of Land Commission intrusion became known.)

I quote another letter from the Sunday Independent of 13th July, 1969, which reads as follows:

My lands were also purchased by the Land Commission for Bonds which had fallen in price before being put into my name. If I require to sell at the present time each £100 bond is worth only £67 10s. As bonds paid for many estates are held by elderly people or by several members of one family——

This is important—

——I would suggest that the Minister for Finance be requested, as a concession to those who have lost so much of their capital, to allow land bonds, at their face value, to be accepted in payment of death duties, as is the case of National Loan Stock.

This point was made earlier in the debate by Deputy Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins. These letters support the suggestion made earlier by Deputy O'Donovan and by Fine Gael speakers. In particular, we should bear in mind the fact that many people who are paid in land bonds are people who have been, by the sale of their lands, deprived of any means of livelihood because they have no other skill which would enable them to earn money. The amount of money they get for their land is, therefore, of vital importance to them. Those who sell land in this way should be able to maintain a reasonable standard of living, a standard of living not too much below that which they enjoyed before they sold their land. The present system of land bonds is causing uncertainty, to say nothing of the very considerable drop in the standard of living of many of those affected. I suggest the Minister should in future consider paying cash.

In relation to land purchase, the Land Commission in many cases adopts a "dog in the manger" attitude. I heard of a case recently — I have not got the details with me at the moment —in which a person was going forward to sell land by public auction. The Land Commission wrote to him and told him they wanted the land and he was not to go ahead with the sale by auction, even though he had had an offer and the whole thing was well advanced. Yet, while they refused to let him sell to anybody else, they would not buy the land themselves. They kept him hanging. He could not sell to anyone else and they refused to take up the land. This is probably happening fairly widely. This is very unjust. Those who want to sell land should be allowed to do so, provided the sale of the land does not in any way militate against the national interest.

Reference was made to the very laudable provision in the 1965 Act whereby the Land Commission was empowered to buy up land held by elderly people and to provide pensions for them out of the purchase money so that the land could be transferred to younger people. This is a very sensible proposal because it ensures the maximum use is made of the land. The only thing about which I am worried is the number of people who have been so far provided with pensions and the number of young people who have been acquired land. I understand the number in both instances is exceptionally low. I have heard a figure of one or two. That may be wrong, but I do not think there are very many. Since this is an excellent provision the Minister should investigate the position to find out why advantage is not being taken of it and why it is not being operated as effectively and as widely as it should be in the national interest.

Some provisions in this Bill are quite good. The Land Commission has a very important function. Every year 12,000 to 15,000 people leave the land. If the work of the Land Commission were accelerated I believe this drift from the land would be checked. It is tragic to see it continue and we may in the future look back with regret because we did nothing to prevent this situation. Every farm the Land Commission divide helps to keep people on the land.

One of the reasons why the Land Commission have not succeeded as they should in having enough land available to divide amongst those who want land and who are anxious to engage in agriculture is because sufficient people are not coming forward offering land to the Land Commission and the reason why they are not doing so is because they are paid in land bonds. In today's paper I see that the eight per cent land bonds are quoted at 91 and the 7½ per cent land bonds are quoted at 83¼. That is the reason why people are reluctant to sell land to the Land Commission. If the Minister, as a private individual, were to purchase a farm and, in six years time, try to pay £91 for every £100 there would be such a public outcry that anyone attempting this exercise would be immediately defeated. Apparently the Land Commission can get away with it. This practice should be stopped. Those who sell land to the Land Commission because they want to retire from farming and who are paid in land bonds find that their capital is considerably reduced in time. The same situation obtains if they wish to buy a farm again; their capital has depreciated. I cannot see any reason why the Land Commission should not pay cash. Perhaps, the Minister would explain why the Land Commission cannot do so when he comes to reply. There is a great deal of criticism of the present practice. There may be valid reasons for the practice. I should like to know what they are so that I, in turn, can explain the position fully to people who are interested. This is an urgent matter. Cash should be paid for land, and only cash. I believe that many more people will come forward to the Land Commission when they have farms to sell instead of, as at present, avoiding the Land Commission and trying to sell their land anywhere or in any way other than to the Land Commission. The Land Commission are in a position to help Irish agriculture in a very big way.

I should like to thank the Deputies for their very constructive approach to this Bill and for their acceptance of it. The objective of all of us, especially of those from rural Ireland who understand the problems, is to speed up the development of small farms to an economic size.

The principal matter raised in the course of the debate was in relation to the bonds and the value of bonds. First of all let me say that, as I mentioned in my introductory statement, we are paying a very considerable amount in cash for land at the present time. The amount has increased from about £20,000 to £600,000. It is not just feasible at the moment to change over entirely to cash because there are so many other demands on the Exchequer. There are demands for more money for agriculture, health, education, social welfare and so on and therefore it is not possible at the present time to change over entirely from bonds to cash but, as Deputies can see from the information I have given in relation to the amount of cash that is being paid at the present time, we are proceeding in that direction.

Could I ask the Minister a question?

Could the Deputy wait until the Minister has finished his speech?

I think it was Deputy O'Donovan who asked the question what interest rate would accrue to the new land bond issue. Of course, that is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Minister for Finance. The Deputy was correct in saying that under section 4 (3) of the Land Bond Act 1934, the rate of interest fixed for land bonds by the Minister must be such as to ensure that the value of the bonds is to remain at or near par.

It is a fact that in the most recent issue the value of the bond fell pretty soon after it was created but I am sure Deputies are aware that there has been a crisis throughout the world in relation to interest rates and we could not hope to come free from that situation. I think it was Deputy Bruton who mentioned that he read some letters in relation to the fall in the value of a particular bond. He must know that if the person concerned had been paid cash at that time and had invested the money in fixed interest rate securities the same thing would have happened because of the inflationary situation that we find ourselves in, not only in this country but throughout the world. I am told that in America at the present time the lending rate has reached a phenomenal height.

Another matter that was raised here was as to why the bonds are not paid out immediately. Of course, the problem here is almost invariably a matter of getting title. We do our best on our side to get people fixed up as soon as possible but it does not always depend on us. Sometimes, for one reason or another, there may be a certain amount of laxity in connection with it but I can assure the Deputies that as soon as title is cleared the bonds are paid.

Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde raised the point that the rent charged in the west or in the congested areas is lower than in the eastern section of the country. What we have to do here also is to try to use the money we have in the best possible way and to favour those who are in the greatest need and it is pretty obvious that in the west of Ireland, where there are so many small farms, it is necessary to do something more than is being done on the east coast. Apart from that, there is also the fact that along the east coast it is, generally speaking, very much easier to get other types of employment than it is in the west. For these reasons, we have to concern ourselves more with the west than with the east coast in relation to rents.

I think it was the same Deputy who said that we had reached a point where people were refusing to take the land because of the rent being charged and said that this had reached pretty high proportions. My information is that it is not yet a very serious problem but, of course, we keep this matter under constant review.

Deputy Bruton referred to the pension scheme and said he believed it was an excellent scheme, which indeed it is, from the point of view of getting old people to hand over their farms for the relief of congestion; but he suggested that, unfortunately, we have not got very many applications to date. We have got a fair number but not anything like what we would like to get.

How many?

To be honest, I could not tell the Deputy at the moment but I have these figures and could get them. They are not nearly what we would like them to be. There are two factors involved here. One is that the people concerned, old people, are not as a rule anxious to change their mode of life. They are not as a rule anxious to give up the land on which they have lived all their lives and it takes a very considerable amount of convincing to get them to agree to it. A second thing is that we may find it necessary to give a better incentive. This whole question, I can tell the Deputy, is being re-examined by the Land Commission.

The main point that was raised was the matter of cash payments and I have pointed out that we have gone to considerable length in increasing the amount of money available for cash payments when this year we are paying out £600,000 and this is, to put it in perspective, an increase of £170,000 on last year. That shows that we are concerning ourselves with this matter.

On the question of accepting land bonds for death duties, what is the position?

I am afraid the position at the moment is that they do not accept them at par.

The Minister could work on the Minister for Finance to have them accepted.

The Minister made the point, and it was a valid one to some extent, that most security prices have fallen and that land bonds had fallen also and that they had something in common with others. I would be interested to know whether, in fact, land bonds have fallen more rapidly than the average security. I would be inclined to think that probably land bonds have fallen slightly more than the average security has over a given period.

Another question I should like to ask is, what criteria are used by the Minister in deciding whether or not a particular person will be paid in land bonds or in cash and, also, is there much publicity given through the various media in relation to this scheme to provide pensions for old persons whose land is bought up by the Land Commission?

With regard to the value of land bonds, I am afraid I have not the information to make comparisons but all over the world in recent years this has been the regular experience.

With regard to the way in which we decide whether to pay in cash or in bonds, in the case of all compulsory acquisitions, payment is made in bonds but in the case of voluntary acquisition this can be either in bonds or cash. We endeavour to ensure, in so far as is possible, that the smaller vendor receives cash.

One question that arises from my speech and with which the Minister has not dealt is that there are some cases in which the Land Commission are preventing people from selling commercially while not taking up the land themselves. I know of a particular case in my own constituency where this has caused considerable hardship.

This only applies in the case of foreigners.

I know of a case concerning a native in my own constituency.

Perhaps the Deputy will let me have details of that particular case and I shall have it looked into.

Does the Minister know of any such cases offhand?

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 22nd July, 1969.
Barr
Roinn