There are no amendments for Report Stage.
Land Bond Bill, 1980: Fifth Stage.
I submitted amendments.
Any amendments submitted were out of order. Since there are no amendments which may be moved on Report Stage we proceed to Fifth Stage. Therefore I call on the Minister to move: "That the Bill do now pass."
I move: "That the Bill do now pass."
I regret that we must oppose the Fifth Stage of this Bill. We feel very strongly that land bonds which were initiated in the 19th century as a means of compensating landlords, such as Lord Lansdowne and Lord Palmerston, for their estates when they were taken from them in order that they could be given as tenant proprietors to the small farmers of Ireland is not now relevant as a means of compensating small farmers who find themselves having their land taken from them compulsorily by the Land Commission.
I might warn the Deputy at this stage that we are not going to have another Second Reading debate.
It is because we believe that land bonds are intrinsically wrong, have argued that they are unconstitutional and should not be used as a means of purchasing land that regrettably we must oppose a Bill which seeks to provide for a greater issue of land bonds for the purchase of land.
Why did the Deputy's party use them for four-and-a-half years?
As one who hates land bonds and who has said so in this House time and again I have heard from the far side of the House—and I have complained myself—about the Land Commission not acquiring lands at present. Does anybody on the far side of the House suggest that the Land Commission could pay for all the land coming on the market at present? If they do let them say so. Perhaps we cauld get money from the EEC. We want to continue that division of land and I think that has been agreed also on the far side of the House. We have no option. Opposing this Bill is acting inconsistently at present because there is no way in which the Land Commission could pay for land at present.
I would remind the Deputy, as I have already announced, that we are confined to Fifth Stage and nothing else.
Very well, if the Chair does not allow me. I might just ask a question of the Opposition with regard to their inconsistency. None of us likes land bonds, I hate them, but we have no option if land is to continue to be acquired for the relief of congestion. Deputy Fitzpatrick knows this. We want to continue acquiring land for the relief of congestion particularly in the west and I see no alternative to this Bill. For that reason I cannot understand why the Opposition are opposing it.
If the Land Commission take property from them they should provide——
But where will one get the money?
(Interruptions.)
I wish to God we could get the money, when I would be the happiest man in Ireland.
(Cavan-Monaghan): This Bill seeks to provide a further £25 million worth of land bonds for the acquisition of land. Like Deputy Bruton and indeed Deputy Callanan I deplore the acquisition of land in exchange for land bonds because it is an unjust system of paying for land. Land bonds fall in value. If we had today's papers here we would see some £100 worth standing at about £50 and others issued comparatively recently, bearing interest as high as 16 per cent, now standing at less than £100. That system of paying for land is particularly unfair and unjust in an inflationary situation in which they fall in value very rapidly.
The Minister has expressed grave urgency about this Bill. The last issue of land bonds was effected early this year. Apparently the position is that the Land Commission have now no bonds whatever with which to pay for lands. They are actually waiting with their hands out for the enactment of this Bill so that they can carry on.
I am concerned with what is in this Bill also for another reason. The amount in nominal value of land bonds being sought is £25 million. The Minister tells us that that amount of bonds will enable the Land Commission to carry on for two years. As far as I can ascertain that means that, in the next two years, the Land Commission will pay for about 20,000 acres of land with these bonds. The Minister of State knows as well as I do that a normal year's work for the Land Commission is the acquisition of approximately 34,000 or 35,000 acres of land. Therefore I see in this Bill clear evidence that the operations of the Land Commission are coming to a standstill. Deputy Callanan must know as well as I do that since Fianna Fáil resumed office the Land Commission have ground to a halt. Likewise Deputy Callanan knows that the first step in the acquisition of land by the Land Commission is the service of a section 40 notice. I got on the record of this House the fact that in six months of 1977 approximately 200 of these notices were served, that in approximately six months of 1978 approximately 198 such notices were served, but over a similar six month period last year 22 notices only were served.
That is what we want the Bill for.
(Cavan-Monaghan): No, this will not pay for it and the Minister knows that. Our small farmers are seeing land disappear from under their noses.
The Deputy shed no tears for the small farmers in the west anyway.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I employed 20 additional inspectors in the Land Commission to fill vacancies created by a Minister from the west who was there before me. I filled 20 vacancies for out-door inspectors which were let run down by Fianna Fáil before I came into office.
That is the Deputy's answer.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Deputy can put that in his pipe and smoke it. Every year of my term of office up to 35,000 acres of land were acquired for our small farmers. If Deputy Leyden wants to know it—and Deputy Callanan will not deny this—during my term as Minister for Lands commonage in the west was divided for the first time in years, if not for the first time ever.
This bears no relation to the Vote.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I have been told by Deputy Leyden that I have no concern for the small farmers of the west.
(interruptions.)
Order, please.
(Cavan-Monaghan): At present the small farmers in the west and in Cavan and Monaghan see land disappearing from under their noses into the hands of speculators, into the hands of non-farmers——
The Deputy did not forget his own when he was in office.
(Cavan-Monaghan):——into the hands of people who already have enough land. That is not good enough. There is a vacuum there at the moment. We are told that in a couple of years' time a Bill will be introduced that will do the trick but in the meantime the vacuum is there.
If this Bill is not passed what is going to happen? The Deputy is being inconsistent.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am not being inconsistent. The Minister of State says——
The Deputy should keep to the terms of the debate.
Land bonds are not paying anybody for anything. It is a forced loan from whoever is selling the land.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister of State says that he has 40,000 acres of land in the machine to be paid for. There is no way that this £25 million will pay for 40,000 acres of land that is already in the machine requiring to be paid for. This Bill here will not buy one additional acre of land that the Land Commission have not already taken steps to acquire. This is a closing down sale by the Land Commission. It is an operation to pay for the work that they have on hand but it will not enable the Land Commission to acquire one additional acre of land for the small farmers of Deputy Leyden's constituency and the small farmers of Deputy Callanan's constituency.
Why does the Deputy not propose to increase it then?
(Cavan-Monaghan): Because I would be ruled out of order by the Chair as putting a charge on the revenue if I sought to increase it.
The Deputy is voting against it.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I have come into this House several times since the change of Government because I have seen the heavy hand of the Department of Finance crushing the Land Commission out of existence; the Fianna Fáil Deputies from the west are being codded about this and they are helpless to do anything. Nothing short of another rebellion within Fianna Fáil will save the small farmers of Ireland from being pushed off the land. It is a disgrace to see a decent Deputy like the Minister of State here, from a congested area, presiding over the extinction of small farmers and the winding up of the Land Commission.
It was not my intention to come in on this Bill.
I hope the Deputy will not follow in the same strain as the last speaker because it is totally disorderly.
I am amazed at the opposition of Fine Gael to this Bill. I am appalled by the hypocrisy of it. I am appalled that they are opposing this very important legislation which will enable the Land Commission to carry on their good work. During the Coalition period of office they used the land bond system. It has been used by this State since its foundation. Whether we like it or not it is one system which has operated successfully over the years, and when Fine Gael were in the Coalition Government they took no steps whatsoever to change the system. Yet they come in here today and oppose this legislation introduced by Fianna Fáil enabling the Land Commission to carry on their good work. I am surprised at their opposition to this legislation and I appeal to them to assist in its passage to ensure that the Land Commission will be given the necessary funds because I am anxious to see many small holdings being acquired in my area.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It will not be acquired under this.
In parts of Roscommon and in parts of north-east Galway which are part of my constituency there is quite a lot of congestion and there is quite a lot of land available for purchase by the Land Commission. But Fine Gael are holding up the passage of this Bill and preventing the purchase of land in those areas. I will be preaching this message at every church gate when I get an opportunity. I will let the people know of the hypocrisy of Fine Gael who are opposing the landless men on their small congested holdings in the west by their opposition to this legislation which Fianna Fáil have put forward. I am more than amazed at this opposition. I would like to see £50 million in land bonds for the purchase of land and I would urge the Government to increase the amount that they are seeking here today because we need more land, so that the Land Commission will continue for the moment at least. They are doing tremendous work in helping to relieve congestion in rural Ireland and, in particular, the west. I appeal to the Opposition to cut out this nonsense and assist the Government in the passage of this legislation.
It is clear at this stage that we have flushed out Fianna Fáil and we can now see exactly what they believe in. In the past there were expressions of dismay from that party at the continuance of the land bond system. One of the present Ministers of the Government referred to it as a fraud a few years ago. We now have a backbencher from Fianna Fáil coming in here and, in the heat of the moment, clearly laying it on the line where they stand. This Government have shown themselves to be clearly in favour of this obnoxious system, and to suggest to this House that we in Fine Gael should withdraw our opposition to this Bill on different grounds is totally confusing the issue.
Fine Gael are in favour of the acquisition of unused and under-utilised holdings and their distribution among the small farmers here. But common decency and common justice demand that the acquisition of such lands should be paid for at market value in cash. The last speaker asks what can be done to alleviate the problems of the small farmers and sheds a tear for the small farmers of his own area. Yet, at the same time, he forgets that a lot of the land that is acquired by the Land Commission comes from small farmers. We have to balance the situation by ensuring that there is a programme of acquisition of land which is not being used or is under-utilised for distribution to small farmers. At the same time it is clear that the person from whom that land is acquired must be paid and should be paid in cash and that is a clear point that has to be put on the record here. The land bond system is an obnoxious one and an unfair one and the result is that many people who have been paid bonds in the past are now suffering a huge loss as a result.
There was a reference to the performance of the Coalition in this regard and it is no harm to again put on the record of this House that the Coalition provided more cash for land purchase than was ever provided by Fianna Fáil. Furthermore the land bonds issued by the Coalition were worth more than par and in fact went above the 100 per cent for a long period as opposed to the bonds issued by Fianna Fáil which dropped to less than half their value in many cases. There is no point in any Deputy from the Government side trying to confuse the issue. We have this situation and we are all agreed that there should be acquisition powers so that land can be obtained and distributed to the small farmers. I can imagine Deputy Leyden preaching at the Church gate and trying, in typical Fianna Fáil fashion, to spread the lie about Fine Gael's views on this matter. Our views are clear and I challenge Deputy Leyden to examine his own conscience before he goes around spreading lies about that.
How is the land going to be paid for?
With cash.
Where will it come from?
Where do the Government get the cash to acquire anything else compulsorily?
I appreciate Deputy Callanan's viewpoint and I appreciate his concern. I would ask him also to have concern for those people from whom the land is acquired. In 1923 there was not a tremendous lot of sympathy for huge absentee landlords. The situation is different today. The situation is that land is being acquired in small lots from the ordinary, decent individuals who are entitled to be treated in an ordinary, decent way.
We cannot have debate on the policy of the Land Commission. The Deputy should relate his remarks to the Bill.
I am coming to that.
I allowed the Deputy a certain amount of leniency because other Deputies did the same thing.
I will not be long more. If we are talking about the people from whom we are acquiring land we are talking about the manner in which they are to be paid. This is the true relationship. If the Minister and the Government are adamant in continuing this obnoxious system they should provide some safeguards for the unfortunate individual who may find that what he is getting for his land is worth half the amount in five years' time.
There are two major problems. The first is in regard to inflation, getting a fixed sum which over a period of time is eroded and eaten away by inflation. It would be difficult to tackle that problem unless there was some kind of indexed bond issued. That is something the Minister might well shy away from. The second point is the fall in value in the bond when it goes well below par. I know there are redemptions every now and then and by chance its number may come up and the bond may be redeemed at full value. If the lands bond system is to continue why should there not be a system where, over a relatively short period of time, there would be a guaranteed redemption at full value? If the bond falls below par and is held for a certain period of time the loss in value below par would be made up to the original holder by the Government which issued the bond. This is not the ideal solution but would alleviate the situation of those upon whom the Government intend to foist these land bonds.
I deny categorically Deputy Fitzpatrick's statement that this is a run down sale of the Land Commission. Nothing could be further from the truth. The position is that legislation is being prepared at present by the Government to restructure the Land Commission, and I assure the House that whatever restructuring takes place the Land Commission, or whatever authority may be set up as a result of restructuring, has a very important role to play in the re-allocation, purchase and restructuring of land.
As I stated on Second Stage and yesterday on Committee Stage the £25 million which we are seeking under the Bill is necessary to complete the sales of the 40,000 acres which we already have in the machinery at various stages of acquisition. We know that it will not be possible to purchase all the 40,000 acres and some will fall by the wayside. We will be able to purchase some new land. It is not true to say that the £25 million being made available is for the purpose of paying for the 40,000 acres.
As I said yesterday, I am satisfied that this will be sufficient for two years and at the end of that time the new land authority will be set up and be in operation. It is a question for the Government as to how the new land authority will be financed.
I am surprised at the opposition of Fine Gael to the Bill because during their term of office they did nothing to change the situation and know full well that if one had not land bonds one could not find the massive capital requirement for the purchase of additional land by the Land Commission. That is the one thing that would grind the activities of the Land Commission to a halt. That is what Fine Gael are trying to do this morning. If we look at the figures of land acquired during the past four or five years and paid for in bonds, in 1973-74 6,000 acres were acquired; in nine months of 1974, 12,000 acres; 1975, 11,000 acres; 1976, 17,000 acres; 1977, 15,000 acres; 1978, 12,000 acres; 1979, 10,000 acres. It is quite obvious that during those three years that the Coalition were in power the acreage of land acquired and paid for under bonds increased substantially. If those bonds are so wrong this morning and if they are so wrong under the legislation why did Deputy Fitzpatrick and his Government at that time not try to do something about it? The acreage during Deputy Fitzpatrick's term of office increased. I fail to understand——
Those bonds were worth their value whereas those in existence now are not.
They are the same as any fixed interest security.
At the time they were issued they were worth over par, the bonds being issued now are not.
That is not so. I have given the figures and have shown the insincerity of the arguments being put forward by Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy Bruton.
(Cavan-Monaghan): How much land was paid for in cash during that same period?
I will get those figures for the Deputy if he wants them.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 57 ; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Farrell, Joe.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzsimons, James N.
- Fox, Christopher J.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Dennis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killeen, Tim.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Nolan, Tom.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- Smith, Michael.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Luke.
- Bruton, John.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Corish, Brendan.
- D'Arcy, Michael J.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Horgan, John.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- Mannion, John M.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Moore and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies L'Estrange and B. Desmond.
Question declared carried.
This Bill is certified a Money Bill, in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution.