Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 1983

Vol. 340 No. 8

Land Bond Bill, 1983: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture (Mr. Connaughton)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

The purpose of this short Bill is to raise the limit on the amount of land bonds which may be created to pay for lands acquired by the Land Commission. The bonds are created by the Minister for Finance by way of Land Bond orders which fix the rate of interest to be borne by each particular series of bonds. The orders are normally made on an annual basis to meet the Land Commission's requirements for the year. The last order, made on 29 January 1982, brought the total amount of bonds to the present statutory limit of £105 million. Accordingly, statutory authority is now required for the creation of additional land bonds and the proposal is to raise the limit from £105 million to £130 million.

I should say that the present Bill is purely an enabling measure. The actual amount of bonds that will be created from time to time will be settled by the Minister for Finance having regard to the amount of land that is in the process of being acquired and the cost of it. The additional £25 million provided for in the Bill represents an estimate of what is likely to be required for the commitments that will have to be met during the next couple of years.

The amount of land being acquired by the Land Commission for relief of congestion has been declining in the recent years. This is due to several factors. First of all, there are now few large estates suitable for acquisition left in the country. Secondly, the high prices of land that have prevailed for some time past limit the amount of land that can be acquired. Additionally, the high prices mean that most of the land acquired must be re-allocated at well below its original cost. The loss on re-allocation represents a subsidy by the State — in many cases a very substantial subsidy — to the allottees. Land acquisition is also surrounded by a complex of legal constraints that slow down the whole acquisition process. For these reasons it is unlikely that the traditional Land Commission activity of acquiring land for redistribution to smallholders can make any dramatic impact on our land structure problems in the future. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that there is now a fairly general consensus that a land policy based solely or mainly on the traditional activity is not really appropriate to the agricultural industry of the present day.

There has been widespread discussion and much has been written over the last decade or so about our land structure problems. The last piece of legislation relating specifically to these problems was the Land Act of 1965. Agriculture has changed greatly in many respects since that Act was passed. Our accession to the EEC has, of course, contributed more than anything else to the changes that have occurred. However, the more some things change, the more others remain the same, and certainly our land structural situation is not improving as rapidly as we would like to see it.

This concern about the slow rate of change has led to some demands for new legislation with new policies. Some changes in policy are clearly required and it may be necessary to enact fresh legislation to put many of them into effect. However, experience has shown — indeed the 1965 Act itself would show it — that the mere passing of a new Act will, on its own, achieve little. The most fundamental change needed is a change of attitudes to the ownership of land and to land problems generally, a willingness to see land as a scarce and valuable resource that we can ill afford to see lying idle or under utilised on any wide scale. Too much of our land is not being used productively and it seems to me that the first objective of any new land policy must be to promote the most efficient use of land. Indeed, all the studies and reports of recent times on the subject of land structure have agreed that this has to be the priority objective. What is much more difficult to get consensus on is how precisely the objective is best pursued. It is argued that a greater degree of land mobility is a necessary first step. The fact that our land tenure system is solely an owner-occupier one obviously curtails mobility. The ideas advanced for tackling this particular difficulty include the promotion of longer term leasing, earlier inheritance, the development of arrangements for the gradual transfer of management of the farm to the succeeding generation by partnership agreements, and greater encouragement for elderly farmers to retire.

I propose to give careful thought to these matters. I am conscious that structural change is of its nature a slow process and it is best to hasten slowly in deciding finally on what new direction policies might take. My primary aim will be to see how best the State can assist in the creation of conditions under which land will be, as far as possible, directed towards those who are likely to make the best use of it.

I have made these general comments so as to let the House know that the presentation of this Land Bond Bill should not be taken as representing any commitment by the present Government just to continuing existing land policies as they are. Policy changes are necessary but their formulation and direction will require calm and careful thought. In the meantime, funds are required to enable the Land Commission to carry through the acquisitions they have on hands at present and those that will fall for completion over the next couple of years.

I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): I would like to congratulate Deputy Connaughton on his appointment as Minister of State. As this is my first opportunity of doing so I would like to wish him well for as long as he will be in that Department. Naturally this side of the House hope it will be as short as possible. Nevertheless, for the period he is there I wish him well. We welcome this Land Bond Bill. It is to a certain extent enabling legislation to increase the amount of land bonds to be made available to the Land Commission to purchase more land. The major problem affecting the Land Commission at the moment is a shortage of cash. While I welcome this Bill I feel it is only a short term process because the greatest problem facing the Land Commission at the moment is a shortage of the necessary finance.

I feel the Land Commission should be restructured and that the legislation to change the structure of the Land Commission should be introduced as soon as possible. As the Minister of State pointed out this morning:

The most fundamental change needed is a change of attitudes to the ownership of land and to land problems generally, willingness to see land as a scarce and valuable resource that we can ill afford to see lying idle or under utilised on any wide scale.

I welcome also the proposals by the Minister outlined in his statement to The Farmers Journal of 25 February. On reading through the points made I cannot but think back on the White Paper our party issued and the major policy changes outlined by the Minister in The Farmers Journal are more or less the same policy changes we outlined a number of years ago. Unfortunately, due to the number of general elections we have had over the last two years, it was not possible to implement this legislation.

I hope the Government will allow the Minister to implement the legislation, which is so necessary at the moment, for land reform. As the Minister of State rightly stated the question of land reform, and the mobility of land particularly, is very important. I would like to refer to The Farmers' Journal where it is stated that the high price of land adds to the problem of acquiring estates today. The Minister of State outlined that in his statement this morning. The Farmers' Journal states that the Land Commission is obliged to buy land at the market price, and, therefore, as long as prices and interest rates remain high the annuities required to recover the cost of the land will be beyond what any normal farming activity can carry. This is correct but at the same time I wonder what is the policy of the Government with regard to land mobility when one considers their decision to suspend the proposals which our Government had to make funds available at low interest rates through the EEC scheme.

We can talk about land being made available and the price of land but ways and means must be available to counter that problem. If there is a willingness by the Government to counter that problem there must also be a way. I know the Minister of State is sincere and is conscious of the very great problems which affect the Land Commission today, particularly in making land available to young people, I hope that he, through the Minister for Agriculture at the Cabinet table, will see that legislation is introduced irrespective of whose ideas and whose thoughts they are. The important thing at the moment is to make land available at a reasonable price so that it can be given to young people and those who want to make a career in agriculture.

We know that the budget for the Land Commission in the region of £15 million is inadequate. Land is on offer at the present time but it cannot be purchased by the Land Commission because of the lack of the necessary finance. If we are to restore confidence in agriculture this can be done by making land available at a reasonable price. The only way of making this land available is through the Land Commission. The name of the Land Commission may be changed but it is basically the only hope in the years ahead of making this land available. When we consider at the moment the uncertainty in farming, that a farmer may not have either the courage or the capacity to purchase land or indeed to increase his holding, we should ensure that where small parcels of land become available they are distributed only through the Land Commission. Another aspect in which the Land Commission must be involved is in relation to larger estates because only the commission are in a position to purchase these lands but one would hope that the machinery for this process would be speeded up. There is the question also of the consolidation of holdings and in this respect, too, the Land Commission can play a useful role.

I commend the Minister for expanding on his views in respect of the distribution and mobility of land. In regard to young people going into farming from scratch, the involvement of the Land Commission is vital in terms of the making available of land.

We should aim at bringing about a situation in which all land that is under-utilised is made available by way of a long-term leasing system. Land has been always an emotive subject in Ireland, but failure to utilise it fully can result in many social problems expecially in the area of ownership. Therefore, I look forward to the Government introducing leasing arrangements in respect of land that is under utilised. Any such arrangements must be encouraged and promoted by the Department and by the commission.

Unfortunately, the Farm Retirement Scheme has been suspended by this Government. This is a step in the wrong direction and is not in keeping with the Minister's peoposals as outlined in The Farmers' Journal to which I have referred. We all know that this scheme has not been a success but that may have been due to the lack of incentive necessary to encourage farmers to retire. However, the suspension of the scheme is hardly the answer and I am surprised that the Government should take such a step. In an effort to save money they have seen fit to launch this attack on the farming community.

There was a problem in respect of eligibility for non-contributory old age pensions for farmers who retired under the scheme, in that they often were disqualified on the basis of a means test as a result of payment that had been made to them from the Land Commission or of payments being received under the scheme. Perhaps if we dealt with that problem more farmers would be encouraged to retire thereby making land available to younger and perhaps more ambitious farmers.

I hope, too, that the Land Commission or the new land agency will have a role to play in the area of the group purchase of land. The commission can be the source through which the land is purchased and distributed with the least possible delay. In addition, when an estate is put on the market local farmers can make the Land Commission aware of how much each of them is in a position to contribute. This system would help to reduce the time that elapses between the purchase of land by the commission and its allocation afterwards. While recognising that very often there are legal constraints caused by such problems as title and so on, this procedure must be speeded up.

I also ask the Minister to consider under this new land agency that in cases where the land is purchased by a group of farmers and divided by the Land Commission there should be a waiving of the fee for registration. This would improve the mobility and redistribution of land to younger farmers. At present the Land Commission use a farm size of 40 to 45 acres, but I hope that the new land agency will not stick rigidly to a farm size. They may consider a farm size of 40 to 45 acres a viable holding but any agriculturalist today would not agree with that. Farm size should be flexible in order to suit normal local conditions.

I have already referred to revamping the farmers' retirement scheme and to negotiations with the Department of Social Welfare in relation to legislation concerning the means test.

There is also the question of one farmer selling to another qualified farmer under 35 years of age. Where this younger farmer has completed in an agricultural college one of the EEC courses such as that under Directive 161, the possibility of exemption from stamp duty should be considered to encourage full utilisation of our land, which is a very scarce resource.

The Land Commission have problems. I hope that the Minister and the Government have the will and the courage to tackle these problems and from this side of the House I assure them of our wholehearted support. If we do not agree with certain aspects of Government policy we will criticise them — I hope constructively. I look for a commitment on the part of the Government, although from what I have seen happening over the past few weeks I doubt if there is that commitment.

Mr. Kenny

Firstly, I congratulate Deputy Connaughton on his appointment as Minister of State and Deputy Noonan on his new appointment as Opposition spokesman for the main Opposition party on agriculture. I am not sure that what I have here is the Minister of State's own script. Coming from the west of Ireland the Minister, Deputy Connaughton, is acutely aware of the problems surrounding the Land Commission on an emotional issue — the distribution of land. That has been the case since the Land Commission were founded over a half a century ago. The policies pursued by the Land Commission in many of our rural parishes have divided families for generations over small portions of land which might or might not have any real agricultural value.

Deputy Connaughton comes from the same constituency as one of our first Ministers for Agriculture, Deputy Hogan, and is only too well aware of the enormous complications and divisions which can be caused in discussing land distribution policy. Approximately 1.5 million acres have been acquired in the last half century by the Land Commission, most of this being distributed to various farmers.

The phrase "the more things change, the more they are the same" is included in the Minister's script and he is quite right about that. I have heard various discussions on land bond Bills in this House over the last eight years and things do change and they are the same. When the people now on the Opposition side were on the Government side they defended the acquisition of land by land bonds and we in Opposition had to make our case for the abolition of land bonds as a means of securing land for distribution. The interdepartmental committee set up on land policy some years ago reported, at paragraph 11.5:

We are of the opinion that the use of Land Bonds as a payment medium for lands purchased or acquired for land structural reform purposes is no langer justified and should be discontinued.

The committee went on to describe land bonds in a reasonably fair fashion as follows:

Land Bonds amount to a forced loan without guarantee of repayment date.

It is a simple fact of life that anyone in rural Ireland wishing to dispose of land does so on the basis of receiving cash in return. It is not an easy thing for any Land Commission official to tell a farmer who has held on to land for many years that all he will receive in return for giving the land to the Land Commission is a bundle of papers which might mean nothing to him, even though the interest rates on land bonds in recent times have held up reasonably well. However, there have been cases where former issues of land bonds at different rates have not held their value when being disposed of on the market, which caused an amount of confusion and resentment among those who had to dispose of land in that way.

The question inherent in the Minister's speech when referring to changes in land policy must be the abolition or non-abolition of the Land Commission. Has it outlived its usefulness? Is there still an effective role for it with regard to distribution of our land? Can its powers of acquisition and distribution and the criteria used for distributing land be changed to make it a more effective, more presentable and more attractive body, in so far as our farmers are concerned? The reports one hears from many small farmers of Land Commission activities are not what they should be. The method of disposal and acquisition of land down through the years has not been as attractive as it should be to farmers. Less than .3 per cent of the land sold is disposed of in the market place. Land is normally sold privately or by auctioneers and the amount of land going before the Land Commission for acquisition and division, with the genuine consent of the farmer in question, is minimal indeed.

When the Minister sets out to implement changes in land policy, coming as he does from a province where these problems are very prevalent, he should set about it in a very workmanlike fashion, as I am sure he will, by calling in various authorities, the various interested groups and organisations, in an effort to do something effective about these problems that have gone on for so long, and a range of other related problems have been raised by his speech today.

One of those concerns the division of commonages which in the west of Ireland is a rather pressing problem. Hundreds of thousands of acres have been held in common for years. There is a move among farmers to have these commonages divided among them either under the western package scheme or some related scheme so that they could fence off appropriate areas and use them for better agricultural purposes. Inherent in the law at present is the problem of objections by one or more of the commonage tenants and this has been making it practically impossible legally for the Land Commission to divide the commonages. They can only do it with full consent of all the tenants.

A serious problem relates to the division of commonages, because a farmer with a share in a commonage, whose herd go down as a result of a disease and are then locked up, has an escape alley, to put his herd out on the commonage in which he has a share. The herd would be free-range to mix with other cattle, thereby spreading the disease. I raised this question some years ago in the House with the former Minister, Deputy Gibbons. He agreed on that point and said that some effective work would be put into that aspect of commonage division and of restructure.

There is a genuine feeling among farmers that they should be able to acquire at least a special portion of these commonages to be divided among themselves. It should be looked at seriously by the Minister under the terms of the western package. The present position is unsatisfactory because when one makes a case to the Land Commission or to the Department for division of commonages, when consent has not been given by all of the tenants one does not make any progress whatever and that causes a lot of resentment among other things.

The Minister should also pay attention to the matter of extra turbary or bog plots from the point of view of the Land Commission. With increased fuel costs in recent years there has been an increasing demand for native resources. Thousands of people are now willing to cut turf either by machine or by hand if they had access to bog plots. Undoubtedly many thousands of acres of bog could be acquired which is now either in the hands of the Land Commission, in commonage holdings and in some cases held by the Forestry Department. Such areas could be acquired and road systems could be put into them at reasonable cost under the EEC package. The bogs could be let out to tenants who are only too willing to use them to the maximum advantage.

The Minister should be concerned that in recent years along the west coast there has been an enormous increase in the amount of property being acquired by non-nationals. This should be looked at seriously by the Department. From Donegal to Cork the incidence of ownership of land, either in small parcels or in reasonably large areas, by people from outside the country is on the increase all the time. The Minister should look at the system of acquisition. It is unfair to smaller farmers who have never had the financial means to acquire that land, farmers who could not acquire it except through the agency or the Land Commission, that they should have to remain stunted in their agricultural output or potential because somebody from abroad can walk into a place and acquire it after the appropriate sanction has been issued.

I will be interested to hear the Minister's reply in relation to the criteria that are used and will be used in any modified restructuring of the Land Commission in regard to the allocation and the allotting of land to tenants. Many people living on small holdings — there are 63,000 holdings of land of less than 40 acres of which approximately 42,000 would be in Connacht which are not viable — find it is not easy for farmers to attempt to make a living on a farm of that size. Down through the years the emigration valve to Britain and the US always relieved the pressure on smaller holdings in the west. Many people have been sustained by the continuous stream of money from abroad, from Britain or the US. It helped those families to rear the remaining children and to make some effort to eke a decent living out of the land.

Those people who have the initiative or were fortunate enough to go out to get jobs for themselves often found themselves out of luck in relation to land allocation when the Land Commission came to divide an acquired estate in a district. I should like the Minister to give a clearer explanation on whether a person with a part-time job is entitled under any modification of the Land Commission Acts to be given an allocation of land when division would occur. People with jobs have the potential to plough that money back into any holding they might get and make the land a little more productive than it had been. The argument against that, of course, is that the person who has not been lucky enough to have acquired a job and who would have to resort to unemployment assistance does not have the same means of ploughing money back into a holding of land.

That raises the vexed question of unemployment assistance or farmers' dole in western Ireland. A recent announcement in the budget stated that the PLV system has been determined to be unconstitutional for the first time, on appeal to the Supreme Court. No increased payments were made to smallholders who had been drawing farmers' dole. Various attempts were made during the years to do something about this, to have the system linked either to productivity or to get some return for the money being paid out. The system of following through on farmers' dole payments and assessments made on people who seek the dole is very complicated and takes a long time to sort out. Farmers' sons aged over 18 years who intend to draw unemployment assistance, or farmers' dole, find themselves assessed for board and lodgings if they stay at home, and the amount of money they will qualify for is only a pittance. When money is paid out at that level — the amount of money paid out in recent years has been increased enormously — the Minister should look seriously at the return given for that. The Minister might look at and develop a system in any parish in rural Ireland where there are some portions of ground not being worked as they should be. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of land lying fallow. Land is our most potentially productive resource and, through the co-op or some other system, something could be done to improve the potential output of much of such land.

One could take a typical rural parish and note all of the people drawing farmers' dole in such a parish. One could ask the people of the parish to look to see how there could be greater production from the land — I speak in terms of the number of fences that have to be repaired, the number of gates to be hung, the number of acres to be cleared of scrub, bushes and so on. The Department could provide a service for such farmers. ACOT will lay out the various plans that must be undertaken for the development of an individual farm, whether by way of drainage, land reclamation, reseeding or whatever. If that plan were undertaken in respect of each parish, farmers drawing dole in any of those parishes would be only too willing to give some assistance towards its implementation because it would be in their interest. Also it would give people a sense of pride in what they were doing rather than continuously signing on the line and being handed money for nothing. The farmers who at present draw such dole money would see the value of having the potential productivity of their land increased with help from other farmers and from Government agencies. There would be an intrinsic value for everybody concerned as a result of increased productivity from the land. That is merely an idea from which endless conclusions can be drawn. I would ask the Minister to examine that matter within his Department, to discuss it with the relevant authorities, examine the various options open to him in regard to improving the productivity of our land.

One might well ask: what will the Minister do with these £25 million extra in land bonds? The value of land has fallen in recent years. For example, if he were to acquire land at £1,000 per acre, he would acquire approximately 25,000 acres; if he were to acquire land at £2,000 an acre he would acquire approximately 12,500 acres. Therefore we can assume that, on average, this £25 million in land bonds should acquire approximately 10,000 acres of land. That is not the amount of the land the Land Commission should be acquiring in a year; they should be acquiring much more than that. The section 40 notice is issued for land acquisition initially. Then the process continues until eventually the land is vested in the Land Commission. Perhaps the Minister in replying would indicate how many thousands of acres are in the pipeline for division, that is the amount of land in respect of which section 40 notices have been served but which have not yet been vested in the Land Commission. That would give us some indication of how much work must be undertaken by the Land Commission in the distribution and/or allocation of that land.

The fact that land bonds have not held their value on disposal in many cases over the years has led to a strong reaction on the part of people who have had to give up land under that system. I know the Government answer always has been that it would require massive borrowing in order to facilitate farmers by way of cash in return for the acquisition of their land. Certainly it would be much more attractive to farmers to do it that way. However, I know that the financial constraints imposed on the Department and indeed the Government at present will limit that possibility in the foreseeable future. But it is a matter that must be faced up to. If the Department and the Land Commission want to render the latter an attractive body for the disposal of land, then they must give farmers cash for their land, allowing them to dispose of it as they wish afterwards.

Deputy Noonan mentioned the farmers retirement scheme. I think less than 600 farmers have availed of that scheme since its inception. Deputy Noonan was quite right when he said that this scheme has not been successful. Indeed it should either be abolished or reintroduced in a new form, making it more attractive to farmers. One aspect of that scheme has been that a farmer could not give the land to his son under the scheme as it operates at present whereas his counterpart in some other European countries can do so. The Minister should ensure that that scheme is either totally revamped or introduce some alternative, making it much more attractive for people to dispose of their land.

The amount of land lying fallow at present does the country no credit. We have the potential in our soil to greatly increase productivity. We have also the possibility, by way of the various EEC schemes obtaining, to ensure that land at present not in productive use can be brought into some semblance of production. The channelling of those moneys through to the soil rather than having it wasted in administration and bureaucracy, either through the EEC or the various agencies of the Department, must also be examined by the Minister. There is no point in having £300 million available for the development of ten counties if a minute proportion only finds its way into actively promoting the productivity of the land for which it was intended initially, resulting in an increase in income to the farmers concerned.

I wish the Minister well in his new role. Certainly he has a complex problem on hand with regard to the Land Commission. Various Deputies on this side of the House over the years have spoken about the matter of land bonds, about the Land Commission and what they considered should be done about them. The Land Report has been produced. I am not aware that the headings of the relevant Bill have been drafted. That may take some considerable time. The various agencies involved will have to discuss those headings before anything else is done.

I want to pay the Minister's Department a tribute and thank them for the special allocation made, in conjunction with the Department of Finance, in respect of Ballinafad Agricultural College in my county which I trust will prove of great benefit in the years to come. The ideas inherent in the type of development envisaged there, through the co-operative system, with the assistance of various other organisations, will create a new era in so far as agricultural colleges are concerned. I want to compliment the Minister on having seen to it that that will be allowed continue.

Mr. Kitt

I should like to congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Connaughton, on his appointment. Indeed I congratulate him as a fellow Galwayman and neighbour. I wish him much success in his Department.

Having said that I must be somewhat critical of what he has said. I am somewhat disappointed that the Minister has not given us more information on what will be future land policy. After an interview he gave, which appeared in an article in the Farmers' Journal of 26 February, in which he said that there would be no more reports, no more review bodies, no more study groups, I am amazed that he said this morning we must hasten slowly, giving calm and careful thought to our future land policies. I understood from that interview that there was sufficient information available, that there was general agreement on the kind of reform necessary in regard to our land policies and that we would shortly have a new land policy. Indeed in my time in this House we have had three former Ministers make the statement that they were introducing the last Land Bond Bill.

Perhaps the Minister does not want to fall into that trap. I thought he was going to say this morning that this was the last Land Bond Bill but he did not say that. Neither did he say what will be future land policies. I hope he will give us some information in that respect very quickly. We produced a Government White Paper which was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in December 1980. Indeed in that interview which the Minister of State gave the Farmers' Journal he made some suggestions when outlining his proposals. Deputy Kenny posed a very important question as to exactly how many acres will be acquired by these £25 million. I hope the Minister will reply to that question. Indeed I should like to know also what rate of interest will be borne by this series of land bonds. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that soon, if not today. In the past possibly people were robbed by land bonds, and the high interest rates also meant that people receiving land had to pay very high annuities.

From what I have said the Minister knows I have reservations generally about land bonds. I welcome this Bill for one reason in particular, that is, that it might help to relieve congestion in the western counties. The Land Commission should concentrate on trying to relieve congestion there. In the past the policy of the Land Commission — and I am sure it is the same at present — was to try to enlarge holdings to a viable standard. We are told that is around the 45-acre mark. In the west of Ireland the smaller farmers always looked to the Land Commission for additional land. The only way I can see them getting that type of land is through acquisition and distribution by the Land Commission.

At present the Land Commission are not acquiring as much land as they did in the past. I want to refer to a question put down to the Minister by Deputy Molloy for answer on 15 February. In his reply the Minister said that the initiation of proceedings for the acquisition of further properties is necessarily curtailed because of the Exchequer situation. What is the position where an estate is for sale and the Land Commission will not acquire it because of a shortage of money? Smaller farmers cannot purchase that land. The Minister should not leave the farming community in a Catch 22 situation in which they are helpless. I hope this money will go towards acquiring that type of land in the west in particular.

I could not agree that large estates are not available for acquisition. Some have been available for sale and are suitable for acquisition by the Land Commission in my own constituency, but this has not happened. Something like 60 per cent of our farmers have under 50 acres, and 35 per cent under 30 acres. That is mostly in the Connaught and Munster provinces. I welcome this Bill and I hope the Land Commission will proceed immediately to acquire suitable land.

Deputy Noonan and Deputy Kenny referred to the farm retirement scheme. I hope the Minister will consider re-introducing this scheme. It is curtailed at the moment. I hope we will get greater subventions from the EEC to increase pensions and cash premiums. This would make the scheme more attractive. It is very disturbing that this scheme has not been a success. I hope the Minister will take note of that. In reply to that parliamentary question the Minister said the land pool is reducing. Many Deputies are concerned about the fact that the land in the possession of the Land Commission is not divided quickly enough. When it comes to dividing the land it is usually in bad condition and of poor quality. I hope the Minister will look at the possibility of dividing land much more speedily.

The retirement scheme of which only 600 farmers availed released only 22,000 acres of land. This land is supposed to go to potential development farmers. In many cases this does not happen. It might be as well if it went into the general pool because, in the western areas in particular, it is not easy to find many potential development farmers. If we had a proper farm retirement scheme with improved pensions and cash premiums, more land would become available. I agree with the Minister that we are talking about the mobility of land and the transfer of land. That is a most important aspect.

The fact that in the west we have undersized farms and fragmented holdings makes it clear to me that the Land Commission should make a determined effort to solve the congestion problem. To do that the Land Commission should continue to acquire land and allot it as quickly as possible.

We did not hear anything from the Minister — I thought we would — about measures to stop non-farmers and non-nationals buying land. It was a very wise suggestion in the Government's land policy paper that a surcharge or a premium should be imposed on non-farmers, or farmers with big holdings, or persons who are not dependent on farming for their livelihood. The surcharge or premium mentioned referred to specified land valuations. The whole land valuation question will have to be looked at in view of the recent High Court decision. The Land Commission are well able to adjust farmers' holdings to the good acres they have. Instead of a valuation system they could use adjusted acreage as the basis for the sale of land. It is most important that the Land Commission should monitor these sales and be able to give or refuse consent when a purchase like this is attempted by a non-farmer or a non-national.

I always felt it would be better to purchase land for cash rather than land bonds. One of the features of the farm retirement scheme was that land could be purchased for cash. I realise this would involve making more money available and, as Deputy Noonan said, the Land Commission are short of money at the moment. People have felt, and rightly so, that in general land bonds have been unacceptable. I hope the Minister will look at the possibility of getting more money to provide cash to replace land bonds.

Commonages are a particular feature of the west of Ireland. I read in the land policy white paper that something like one million acres of land are held in commonages. I hope the Minister will make a determined effort with the Land Commission to get those commonages divided. They would be a very useful addition to farmers living in congested areas. I support Deputy Kenny's point that all steps be taken to prevent diseases on commonages.

The Land Commission have been in existence for 100 years. They have done very good work in transferring land and also in transferring farmers from the west of Ireland to the better land in the midlands. I think their main concern should be to relieve congestion and I hope they will make a determined effort in this matter, particularly along the western seaboard. Land in the possession of the Land Commission could be used to help ventures such as the Tuam Sugar Company who have been looking for a greater acreage of beet. As the Minister knows, last year was one of their best years and I hope they will have even better years in the future. The Land Commission could help by making land available and thus encourage more beet growing.

I welcome the Bill in so far as it will help to relieve congestion. I hope the Minister will reply to some of the points I made and to the questions we asked. I hope that he will tell us very shortly that a new land policy will be announced by him and that that policy will implement many of the suggestions in this White Paper.

Mr. Enright

The influence of Michael Davitt is still very strong with regard to land. The House has listened to three speakers from the west of Ireland and presumably Deputy Noonan will contribute also. We have had one Deputy from Mayo and two Deputies from Galway contributing this morning. This brings home the importance of land and the depth of feeling that exists about it. Smallholdings and family farms are dear to the people of Ireland and this morning the House has reflected that feeling.

In past centuries many people dreamt of setting up an Irish Land Commission. We might ask the question, if some of the famous people of the past who made such noble sacrifices for the country would be satisfied with the work of the Land Commission. I should think that many of them would have been satisfied with the good work done by the commission. Various Ministers for Agriculture and the people in the Land Commission have done valuable work during the years and countless farmers would have had to go to Liverpool, London, Manchester, New York and Australia were it not for the work of the commission.

At times the staff in the Land Commission may be regarded as faceless men. If Solomon himself were asked to divide estates I am sure he would have made many mistakes and blunders. The Land Commission are no wiser than Solomon. They have made many mistakes and blunders but overall they have done excellent work. We should proceed very slowly in phasing out the Land Commission. As an Irishman in an Irish Parliament I am saddened that the commission are being slowly but surely phased out. During the years they have helped thousands of farmers who were living at starvation level, whose existence was meagre and who were struggling to survive.

Mr. H. Byrne

They are going back to that again.

Mr. Enright

The Land Commission succeeded in raising their incomes. During the past few years there has been a change of emphasis with regard to the Land Commission and there has been a gradual slowing down of their operations and financing. This is regrettable. Nowadays people seem to think that if improvements are to be carried out there must be major changes overall. The attitude is that there must be a major leap into the dark to achieve any goal but in nine out of ten cases what happens is that we are left in an even darker condition.

The Land Commission needs overhauling and it is necessary that changes be made. That can be done. This morning the Minister spoke about land reform and land policy and on a recent radio interview Deputy Noonan also spoke about these items. Every Minister for Agriculture and shadow spokesman talk about land policy and all the parties have their views on this matter. When a Minister is appointed to this post we are told that further study is required, that the matter will be given deep consideration, that special study groups or interdepartmental committees will be set up. All this waffle is a recipe for inaction. Let there be a positive approach to try to improve the Land Commission and the structures which are in existence. If there is a positive effort made there could be genuine improvement and the Land Commission could be modernised.

I appreciate that there is a problem in relation to finance. If the Land Commission is phased out we will have huge farms and estates with high walls all round them. We had many of these in different counties in the past but they are now family farms being worked by local farmers. Instead of foreign people owning our land we now have Irish people with estates of 500 acres or 1,000 acres. This is of no benefit to the country. We hear many different statistics from An Foras Talúntais, the Central Bank and so on and there are many different comments made about farm incomes. However, small and medium sized farms are the most efficient. The people who work these farms are better farmers than those with 300 and 500 acre farms. The small intensive farmers who, in most cases, the Land Commission helped, are the people who make our agriculture tick over. If the Land Commission is phased out they will not be given any opportunity to improve their farms. I earnestly request the Minister not to phase out the Land Commission.

Many farmers have sad and bitter memories of purchasing land and now finding they cannot meet interest repayments. They have serious problems and are in severe financial difficulty. There is little sympathy for many of these people. Part of the reason is because many speculators purchased land and fired money away. They shoved up the price of land and because of that little effort is made to help them out of their difficulty.

The Minister is very interested in the group approach, where a group of farmers come to the Land Commission and express their interest in purchasing some farm near them. The Minister has extended every facility to them and I congratulate him on his approach. The Land Commission have helped in the division of land, securing title and with the provision of rights of way and so on. This is to be recommended and encouraged. I have discussed a situation with the Minister where a group of farmers interested in purchasing a farm are able to put up quite a sizeable proportion of the purchase price. They want the Land Commission to pay the remainder and spread it on annuity basis over 20 or 30 year period. There would be a sizeable capital input by the farmers concerned in the purchase of the estate. I have made representations to the Minister about this and he knows the estate which is involved. If people are prepared to use their own savings and cash this would be of benefit to the country. Many estates have been divided entirely on an annuity basis without a cash contribution from the people concerned. I strongly urge the Minister to consider this suggestion as it would be a positive recommendation.

The Minister, Deputies Noonan and Kitt made many references to the farm retirement scheme. As far as I can remember, it was Deputy Nealon who said it was not a success. The Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Fitzpatrick, was one of the people involved with this scheme. Each Minister for Agriculture had an input into it. Lack of finance interfered with the scheme. It is a understatement to say "it was not a success". It was one of the most dismal failures of any scheme I have ever seen. While there was a good intention behind this scheme it was a complete disaster. We were fooling ourselves with the scheme. People handed over estates but some of the pensions were mere pittances and the premiums paid were very small. The scheme might have worked if a farmer had been allowed to have his pension rights brought in in conjunction with his contributory old age pension as distinct from non-contributory pensions which are means tested. If there had been a reasoned approach to the scheme and a farmer was given credits for his contribution to agriculture which would have been regarded as coming under a contributory pension added to the farm retirement pension, the scheme might have been a success.

When farmers realised they had given away their farms and that their pensions were barely in line with the non-contributory old age pension, it sounded the death knell for that scheme. As Deputy Kitt pointed out in regard to the farm retirement scheme, it had scope and could have been worked through the pensions and cash premiums. Even at this stage there should be a further examination of that scheme to see if it could be revitalised to make sure it would work on this occasion. Otherwise, people will not be prepared to retire from farming and they will remain on holdings which are unproductive and, in some cases, lying fallow. The farm retirement scheme offers some scope in this direction and I ask the Minister to have a closer look at it.

I am pleased to see that there is a further £75 million provided for land bonds. That is a sizeable contribution during a difficult financial period. Let us hope there will be a further approach made by the new Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture with responsibility for the Land Commission. The experience he has had as a farmer and a public representative in a congested area can be put to practical effect working in conjunction with his advisers.

The Minister also referred to long term leasing. It is an historical matter going back generations and there are practical difficulties because of our history. It is an emotive issue and arouses strong feelings in many people when it is discussed. At present, bogland is being leased and perhaps there will be a break in the mould which has persisted for so long with regard to leasing. It is a very practical, positive approach and holds out great scope if the Minister and his Department can work in conjunction with Macra na Feirme, IFA and other farming bodies to develop some type of leasing body. There must be a change from the old style leasing.

With regard to earlier inheritance, I think it was Deputy John Bruton who originally introduced the removal of stamp duties for a limited period for people under 35 years of age who had done an ACOT course. It was a tremendous assistance, even though I think the scheme closes at the end of this year. It has encouraged more earlier transfers of family farms from fathers to sons than any other scheme of which I am aware. It has been a tremendous success and has certainly assisted in encouraging many parents to transfer their farms to their families.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): Deputy Enright is wrong when he says that Deputy John Bruton introduced the scheme; it was Deputy MacSharry who was responsible for it.

Mr. Enright

I do not want to contradict the Deputy but it was originally introduced by Deputy John Bruton. The idea came from him originally. At any rate, it is very welcome, irrespective of which side of the House brought it in.

The Land Commission have, unfortunately, worked a little too much in isolation. I regret to say there has not been sufficient liaison between the Land Commission, the farm development services and the county committees of agriculture. The Minister should ensure that there is more co-operation between them and actively encourage it. Meetings should be held between all these organisations so that they will be working in unison.

I would like to take this opportunity of wishing Deputy Connaughton well on his appointment and I wish him many happy years in his Department. I believe he will make a strong impression on it and I wish him every success. Deputy Noonan is the spokesman for agriculture on the other side and I also wish him every success as I know he takes an active interest in agriculture.

Mr. H. Byrne

I welcome the Bill, especially the fact that the limit has been raised from £105 million to £130 million. Like Deputy Kenny, when I heard the Minister deliver his address this morning, I wondered could it possibly be Deputy Connaughton's own script, but I quickly concluded it was not, for two reasons: firstly because I have the pleasure of knowing the Minister quite well, having worked with him in Macra na Feirme circles and also one of his comments in particular led me to believe he did not prepare it. He said he was conscious that structural changes, of their nature, are a slow process and that it is best to hasten slowly in deciding finally as to what direction policies might take. I suggest that was never one of the Minister's attributes. The other reason is that the Minister gave an intensive and excellent interview to The Farmers' Journal on 26 February 1983. The script today and the interview in the journal bear little resemblance to one another, and I am very disappointed at that.

I am asking the Minister who reprimanded him. Who changed his ideas? Was it the Minister for Finance or the officials in his Department? I believe, and I said previously when congratulating the Minister and wishing him well, that he was excellent while in Macra na Feirme and he has carried all the attributes through since then. I would like him to be his own man in his Ministry because his ideas are right. Having said so much, I would like to put a question to him which has been put but maybe not as directly as I would put it. How many acres does he believe this increase will buy? Also, within what period of time will this money be used up? Will we have new acquisitions by the Land Commission within the next year? From many representations made to me, and I can say to all Members of the House particularly the farming Members, all over the country acquisition has almost stopped. I am most anxious to know if new acquisitions are being or will be made by the Land Commission within the next year.

Everyone knows that the purpose of the Land Commission is to ensure that as far as possible every acre will be used to the best possible advantage. Everybody here knows from listening to all the speakers this morning that that is not the case and many acres are being misused for many reasons. Both sides of the House have been speaking for quite a while about getting rid of the Land Commission or changing it and calling it by a new name. We have many ideas about what should be put forward by whatever agency will evolve. I do not know what agency that might be. I do not see any great necessity for changing the Land Commission as such, but change their ideas, attitudes and policies. The paper this morning says rightly that changing a name does not necessarily mean that we will improve the situation. We must improve the situation within the framework of the Land Commission as it is, as surely many improvements could be carried out. I was disappointed with the debate this morning in that I heard very few improvements suggested. In the main we were talking about whether we should have a new agency. Let us improve what we have and if it is necessary to change it let us go on and change it, but in the meantime hold on to what we have and make improvements.

The first improvement that I would suggest, speaking from experience of County Wexford, is in the length of time that the Land Commission will hold on to their pool of land before allocation, in some instances ten years. If an estate comes on the market or a group of farmers ask the Land Commission to take over a section of land which is not being used, the Land Commission sometimes will react. They purchase the land and then for some reason for a number of years they will let the land to various farmers around the area. In the past few years there has been some improvement as to the selection of candidates for letting, but I am complaining most about the length of time it takes the Land Commission to decide who should get the land eventually. In this process the fertility of the land goes down. This is one major disastrous mistake that the Land Commission from time to time seem to ignore. When a person then is successful in getting the land it will take him three or four years to build up fertility. All of this is a loss to the economy, and I think that this is the first mention of loss to the economy here this morning. It is a great loss to the economy to have land not worked to its fullest advantage for those ten years, or whatever the period is.

The second important point in respect of the length of time before allocation is fencing. Fences deteriorate in that time. A farmer who has land on the conacre system for 11 months will not provide any worthwhile fencing. He will resort to the old-fashioned way of getting a slash hook and cutting down the nearest bush to place it in the hole and the fence gets worse year by year. This means a consequent loss to the economy.

Another area where the Land Commission can be improved is in the selection of candidates for land. This has been the bone of contention in all parts of the country. In most instances — by that I mean more than 50 per cent and I will not go further than that — the selection of candidates by the Land Commission is probably good. In other instances it has been nothing short of disastrous. I want to quote one instance that came recently to my notice. In south Wexford two people with addresses in Dublin, far removed from the farming scene, were chosen for parcels of land. That might be considered all right if other personnel or candidates had not been interested, but I know of a man who for the last 20 years has rented 60 to 80 acres on conacre. Unfortunately, he does not own any land himself. He was ruled out. I cannot for the life of me understand why this should be the case. Of course, we know that many farmers who got parcels of land from time to time held on to the land for a year and then made efforts to sell it or, if not to sell, to rent it. This kind of thing is most definitely a loss to the economy. It is on such considerations that land should be allocated in the first instance.

I agree with Deputy Enright that the Land Commission should have some consultation with the advisory services. Of course, if they have consultation with them today it will cost them £20 a time. The advisory services and the farm development service must know very well, in most instances better than most of us, which farmers are best entitled to the land or will make best use of it. Only very recently I asked whether the farm advisers and the farm development services were consulted by the Land Commission and I was told that it occurs in very few instances. This is terribly wrong. It is not making use of the services which are provided for us. Up to now, at any rate, there would not have been charges for the advisers talking to Land Commission people. It is nothing short of stupid that the Land Commission will not consult with people who would be in a position to give very valuable information.

The concept of viable holdings is something that we must look at again. A viable holding is rated by the Land Commission as somewhere in the region of 45 adjusted acres. Adjusted acreage, unfortunately, is not a standard thing. It varies from county to county, area to area, almost from parish to parish. We must have something more definite with regard to viable holdings. Being a practising farmer, I would think that the number of acres required now for a viable holding must go beyond that. The Land Commission, as they are the body now responsible, will have to give this consideration in the very near future and will have to change their view on what is a viable holding.

It has been said that the retirement scheme has not been successful. I will be more blunt and say it has been an absolute failure from several points of view. Very few people have participated in the scheme and many of us know people who are anxious to retire but have decided against doing so because of the way the scheme works. Macra na Feirme were probably the first people to highlight the problem of inheritance. Older farmers hold on to their land because they are afraid that the new occupant would not give them fair treatment if they handed it over and, secondly, land ownership is in a person's blood. The Department of Agriculture must make it more attractive for people who are not making use of their land to step aside and leave it to people who would make better use of it. This would be good for the economy. That may seem too blunt but if the retirement scheme were made far more attractive people could certainly be encouraged to step aside. The failure of the scheme so far is not a reason to drop it. Instead we should improve it and lessen the inheritance problem.

Land bonds have undoubtedly been a contributory factor in the lack of success of the Land Commission. I never met anybody who was anxious to be paid for his land in land bonds. While I understand that land bonds may from time to time be cashed at greater than par, this happens only rarely. Some consideration should be given to this matter because attractiveness is the name of the game. If the Minister were to give some thought to this issue I am sure he would come forward with some new ideas to improve it.

Land ownership is in a person's blood and this is an historical fact. Many of our court cases will show that a farmer will hold on to his land with his life. These attitudes will not change easily and the Minister must take this fact into account. The idea is also prevalent that in order to work land a person must own it. This is not the case, as has been clearly shown in many European countries, particularly those within the EEC. There are many very successful instances of land leasing and renting and it is time to get away from the idea that a person must own land in order to work it efficiently. An attractive leasing system would be a great advance. There is, however, an enormous amount of suspicion about leasing and renting and an incentive must be given to people to adopt new ideas which would be for the betterment of the economy.

I would also encourage the Minister to consider greater liaison between the Land Commission and other bodies. There is an instance in south Wexford where the Land Commission have been asked by the Office of Public Works for some land. The land in question is not agricultural and might be used for amenity purposes but I believe the Land Commission are slow to react in this instance. They have a sizeable amount of land in that area which can never be used for agricultural purposes and they should give the proposal some consideration. The Land Commission should consult with other bodies.

There was little indication in the Minister's speech this morning of any commitment by the Government to improvements in the structure of the Land Commission. The Minister stated:

The additional £25 million provided for in the Bill represents an estimate of what is likely to be required for the commitments that will have to be met during the next couple of years.

This actually means that the amount provided will dictate what will be bought during the next couple of years; it does not represent an estimate. If the Land Commission were to purchase even half the available land I know is required by farmers in Wexford, then £25 million would be a ridiculous figure. The Minister also said he was conscious that structural change is of its nature a slow process and that it is best to hasten slowly in deciding finally on what new direction policies might take. Hastening slowly in Department terms can be very slow indeed and it is obvious there is no commitment to getting down to the job. The Minister went on to say that policy changes are necessary but that their formulation and direction will require calm and careful thought. This suggests that the Government had given little or no thought to this matter before coming to power. On the one hand we have the Minister's proposals for land reform. I know this is not as easy as giving an interview to The Farmers Journal but I would like to see some of the ideas contained in that interview appearing also in the Minister's speech. I am very disappointed. It is obvious that the Minister has had little or no input.

It has been clearly shown that the Government have little or no commitment to farming. In recent weeks I have had many representations from farmers who say there is little attraction now for anybody going into farming. The Land Commission will find it difficult to get candidates unless there is some improvements.

The price of land on offer is high. I understand that recently the Land Commission asked for £100 an acre. I know that if you go beyond £45 an acre for grain there is no profit in it. Will the Minister show a little more commitment to farming? I know it is not his fault but he must let his commitment to farming be seen within the Government and not have any anti-farming people dictating to him. I ask the Minister to improve the structure of the Land Commission. It does not necessarily mean that, because the Land Commission have got into a rut, things must remain as they are. It is the Minister's responsibility to see that this is changed. I hope the Minister is successful in his efforts. The Land Commission are a very important body. Their purpose is to ensure that the best use is made of every acre of land. If that happens there will be a great improvement in our economy.

Mr. Sheehan

As a Deputy who comes from a constituency where a major part of the land acreage is in a congested area I know only too well the serious implications land acquisition and land division can have in south-west Cork. The Land Commission over the years have only been skimming the surface of the problem. They have been muzzled for years because of the lack of finance. While our young farmers are starved for land the Land Commission are completely tied down because they cannot go into the public market and buy land for cash. Land bonds are ugly words to any farmer who is retiring or thinking of selling his land.

We must face up to this problem. There must be a major revision of the policies of the Land Commission. We all know that land is our greatest resource and that every acre should be fully utilised. We must ask ourselves, given the need for greater productivity and more employment, how we can justify leaving so much of our most valuable asset producing so little for so long. I believe a sensible taxation policy could help to encourage those who own land, but who are unable or unwilling to work it, either to sell it or lease it to developing farmers. We have an excellent young population who are unemployed. Thousands of them are anxious to get into farming but at present have no means of doing so. Long-term leasing could help to rectify this to everybody's benefit.

We all know that land is a precious commodity. There is only a certain amount of it available. We must bear in mind that we have one of the finest climates in the world for agricultural production and land development. However, thousands of acres of land are lying dormant. Thousands of acres of good mountain pasture that could rear thousands more sheep, which would play a very vital role in our economy, are completely neglected because this major problem exists throughout the country and particularly on the western seaboard from Donegal to Mizen Head. There are mountain commonages in those areas which remain undivided.

We have spent large sums of money over the years on the eradication of bovine TB but I believe commonages are a barrier to the eradication of that disease. When herds are intermingling with each other on lowland pasture where commonages exist, the disease is given an opportunity to spread instead of being eliminated. There is also the problem of sheep scab which has seriously affected our sheep production for years. Great Britain got rid of sheep scab in four years of intensive eradication but we seem to have recurrences of the disease emanating from areas where sheep have not been treated, particularly in mountain pastures. This is because commonages prevail.

The Land Commission have failed hopelessly in some cases to acquire land because legal phraseology bedevilled their work. I have seen farmers crying out to get nearby estates acquired. I have even seen the Land Commission investing in those estates but dilly-dallying so long with acquiring particular estates that people came in behind their backs, paid cash and the adjoining farmers were denied the right to have those estates divided among them. We were told that the reason the land could not be acquired and divided among the farmers was because of legal entanglements in the titles. The Land Commission should have a right to sort out any kind of legal entanglement as far as land sales are concerned.

We all know that 23 per cent of our farmers are over 65 years of age as against 7.6 per cent of Dutch farmers. According to statistics this figure will increase to 25 per cent of our farmers over 65 years of age in 1986. On farms of 50 acres and less, the percentage of males over 65 years of age who are unmarried has more than doubled between 1931 and 1981. No wonder ACOT give astonishing figures categorising farmers as follows: (a) progressive and development farmers, 20 per cent of the nation's farmers; (b) farmers with potential for development, 50 per cent and (c) farmers with no future in the country, 30 per cent. This is surely an alarming state of affairs.

The percentage of land that changed ownership through sale is extremely low. We must, in order to get land for the younger and more energetic farmers, have (a) a sensible retirement policy and (b) a system of long-term leasing. Farmers' sons are being described as landless men by the Land Commission. I fail to see how you can describe any farmer's son as a landless man. All farmers' sons have been reared on farms and have helped their fathers to farm the land intensively. Many of those had several brothers and those who are described as landless men may have been far down the line and the farms could not be handed over to them. However, when these estates are being divided by the Land Commission no recognition is given to those young men who are described as landless men. Surely there should be some other categorisation for those young farmers besides calling them landless men? They are not landowners because of any fault of theirs.

Land bonds, as everybody knows, are not an attractive proposition to farmers who are thinking of selling or retiring. Farmers who are thinking of selling or retiring like to get paid in cash. Farmers have great doubts about land bonds. As far as I am concerned, the farm retirement scheme never got off the ground. Farmers who participated found that when their farm retirement pension increased their old age pension decreased. What attraction is there for a farmer to give up his farm when he finds that every time his farm retirement pension is increased by index his old age pension is reduced? That is a sad reflection on successive Ministers who have allowed this situation to happen. The farm retirement scheme should be scrapped completely and replaced with a more effective scheme. I hope the new Minister of State will do everything in his power to ensure that this happens in the near future. I hope he will ensure that any farmer who has the foresight to participate in a retirement scheme and allows his farm to be divided among adjoining smallholders should not be penalised by having his old age pension reduced the minute his farm retirement pension increases. That sort of codology should not be tolerated in any new Land Bill. Indeed, those farmers who have participated in the retirement scheme should not be subject to that sort of reduction in their old age pensions in the future. Such a change would go a long way towards making the scheme attractive.

I agree with the Minister that too much of our land is not being used productively. The promotion of the more efficient use of land must be paramount in any new land policy. It is acknowledged widely that the removal of stamp duty in respect of the transfer of holdings from farmers to their sons, daughters or other near relatives was a major step forward. However, it is unfortunate that many of these younger people inheriting farms in this way are denied the right to attend the related 100-hour course that was initiated by the EEC. This is because there are not enough courses to meet demand. As Chairman of the Cork County Committee of Agriculture I had the privilege of presiding at the opening in Schull of one of the first courses to be conducted under that scheme. Since then the courses have developed to a great extent but the waiting list of from two to three years is not reasonable. In order to come to terms with this situation I suggest that until such time as there are adequate courses to cater for the demand, those men and women who cannot be accommodated be entitled to benefit under the scheme provided they give an assurance to attend the course within two to three years. This would go a long way towards alleviating the backlog until such time as there are sufficient funds available to provide a greater number of these courses. So as not to discriminate against those people who have applied for the courses but who have not been facilitated, I hope that my suggestion will be taken up without delay.

The Land Commission should think twice before deciding to acquire an estate that has been farmed effectively by a tenant occupier. In any walk of life, efficiency is the keynote to success and that should be recognised by the Land Commission in the area I am speaking of. If a tenant farmer cares for and cultivates to the utmost the land he has been farming for a period of perhaps ten or 15 years, it is most unfair that when the time comes for him to purchase it from the aged owner, the Land Commission become involved and set about acquiring it. That is neither fair nor just. Indeed, it is a grievous insult to the intelligence of any developing farmer. In any such case that may be in the process of being dealt with, I suggest that the Land Commission cease interfering and leave the land in the hands of the farmer who has nutured it so well down through the years.

The Land Commission should step in only in cases where land is not being utilised and in such cases the land should be put into production as quickly as possible. It is regrettable, though, that the Land Commission are the major culprits in terms of the running down of land. This happens by their acquiring farms and then letting them by way of public auction. It results in a situation of neighbour bidding against neighbour, perhaps of neighbours not talking to each other for years because of some bidding prices that are much higher than the land is worth. Land let in this way is very often allowed to run down. I know of estates in south-west Cork that have been let by the commission for the past eight to ten years without any step being taken to divide the lands. Long leasing to adjoining farmers results only in tearing the grass from the roots by way of grazing thereby reducing considerably the fertility of the soil.

The Land Commission should act before it is too late in acquiring land and bringing it quickly up to a high standard. There is at all times a huge land bank to be divided. This land should be distributed among the many young and developing farmers who need it so badly. There should not be delays of more than two to three years in any case in this respect. There is something wrong with a policy that permits the commission to hold up the division of land for up to 12 years.

A new land policy is vitally needed as far as farmers and the Land Commission are concerned. The Land Commission played a good part through the years, but it is high time that we had a new land policy, 20 years having elapsed since the last was formulated. That is far too long in view of the immense changes which have taken place in the agricultural sphere since our accession to the EEC.

Our Minister of State, Deputy Connaughton, coming like myself from a constituency which includes many congested areas, knows the problems as well as anyone. I hope that he will spare no effort and time in formulating a new policy. Over one-third of the world is non-productive because of the barren nature of its soil, but we are blessed with one of the best climates in the world for agricultural production and should fully utilise every available acre and rood of agricultural land. Remember, when the last litre of gas is drained from the Kinsale gasfield, agriculture potential will be the same, or perhaps double what it is now. We should develop that natural resource.

The Minister should expedite the division of commonages all over the country. The sooner that is done, the sooner will fertility be restored to the highlands and lowlands represented in those commonages and the economy will benefit considerably. The Minister should proceed immediately with the new Land Bill, making sure that the new land agency works favourably on behalf of our farmers. They are as good as any farmers in Europe, but have not been given enough opportunity down through the years. They should be given the go-ahead. There should be a streamlined scheme for farm retirement making it attractive for farmers when they retire to sell their holdings to adjoining farmers or to the land agency. They must be given an inducement. They must have a decent pension which will not interfere with their old age pension and the land must be given to young farmers. We must act sharply. Successive Ministers dragged their feet in allowing the Land Commission to be answerable to no one for their decisions. None of us is infallible and I know that the Land Commission are not. At certain times they may not have taken correct decisions, although some of their decisions were of benefit, as everyone knows. However, those who make no mistakes never make anything and by our mistakes we learn. The Minister must play his part in seeing that justice is done as far as division of our land is concerned.

Mr. Leonard

I congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment and hope that he will bring the required drive and imagination to the restructuring of an immensely important area — land usage and land wastage. The Minister mentions the provision of £25 million for land bonds to buy land, but, as a previous speaker stated, that would buy very little land. Had the Minister said that that allocation was for the year 1983 it would have been a better proposition, instead of which it is for the next couple of years. Certainly, that is a dismal picture and very few section 40's will be in evidence on farms for the next couple of years. I agree that the Land Commission activity of acquiring land for redistribution to smallholders cannot make any dramatic impact in future and that that traditional activity is not appropriate in the present day. There must be a major change in attitudes to land allocation and the securing of land generally. The Minister talks about proceeding slowly in the new direction of land policy, but there must be an aggressive policy now.

I ask the Minister to draw up the Land Bill in consultation with the Minister for the Environment. The amount of land wasted at present is causing great concern. This week, on my way to the House, I noticed a number of houses being built on the best farmland in County Louth, half-acre sites being given over to housing. This is demanded by the local authorities because of the position of septic tanks. Land is not renewable. Once concrete is poured on it, or loads of stones, it takes a long time to get it back into condition. The amount of land wasted like that over the last few years gives great cause for concern. The planning authorities must examine this situation. Towns and villages have many derelict sites but industrialists and builders of large housing estates move out on to virgin soil because the towns and villages do not have the necessary services. These builders ignore the gaping scars in those towns and villages. This matter must be examined. One only has to drive northwards through this city, what is now a derelict city, to see massive housing developments ten miles out and from which it costs so many people so much to commute to their jobs. All of that must be examined.

Many speakers referred to the delay in the allocation of land. This is a very serious matter and something to which I drew the Minister's attention recently by way of supplementary questions. Indeed one of the first representations I made when I came into this House in February 1973 was in regard to a farm in my constituency listed in this document showing the lands acquired by the Land Commission in the years 1972 to 1980. That farm about which I made representations still has not been allocated to the small farmers who have been looking over their hedges at that land being allowed run down. Indeed I agree with previous speakers who maintained that no land takes such a buffeting or is allowed run down at such a rate as that let by public auction by the Land Commission. The reason for that is farmers renting that land on the conacre system. If those farmers thought they would have that land for the next five or six years probably they would use fertilisers on it but they take the best out of it in the belief that probably this will be the last year they will have it. I have witnessed that deterioration on a number of farms, recently in my constituency. It is regrettable that this should happen.

I agree also with previous speakers who have said that the Land Commission should have worked in closer co-operation with ACOT and the other agricultural services. I believe one of our real problems at present is the fragmentation of services in the agricultural sector, with offices scattered over many counties. We have no land office in Monaghan. There should be a Land Commission office in each county. Part of the land of County Monaghan, for example, is covered by Cavan and the remainder by a supervisor in Navan. That is not a workable arrangement. We should aim to have ACOT and the various veterinary and other offices housed in one complex, all of them coordinating their efforts. The time will come when we will not be able to afford to have those agencies operating independently.

The point might also be made about the staff of the Land Commission spending so much time on sub-division applications; where there is an application in excess by a few acres it must be sent to the local office. Half of the time of those Land Commission inspectors is spent on subdivision applications. Indeed the legal formalities could be reduced also, particularly when one bears in mind the voluminous files Land Commission inspectors will have with regard to the subdivision of perhaps ten, twelve or fifteen acres of land. There must be some way devised of short-circuiting this formality. There must be some way it could be programmed, in conjunction with ACOT advisers, or some system devised in individual areas rather than, say, letting a farm in one area and spending so much time examining applications. Such a system would do away with a lot of the present cumbersome documentation.

Criticism has been levelled at the farm retirement scheme. I would contend that that scheme is worthy of any criticism it receives because there have been only 600 applications dealt with in the eight years since its inception. The Ceann Comhairle, as Minister for Lands, in 1974 announced the introduction of that scheme. On that very day I telephoned his Department seeking application forms in respect of two people who had indicated to me their intention of going into farming. That scheme will have been in operation nine years in May next. Yet neither of those farms has been divided. I saw one of those farms recently and it has been allowed run down completely in that period. Indeed one farmer who sold the land has long since gone to his grave. Still that land remains undivided.

It would be very interesting to know the view of the EEC Commission of a scheme which they have been funding fairly extensively and which was approved in Brussels. I should like to know their views on that scheme nine years later. At the time of its establishment we were told that that scheme would not be tied up in the red tape involved in the normal acquisition, where there might have been a compulsory acquisition with very lengthy Land Commission court cases. We were told that this land would be handed over voluntarily, on application, reducing all the former red tape. The present Government have withdrawn that scheme and the farm modernisation scheme in order to have a look at them. There should have been a continuous examination of those schemes. Certainly with only 600 applications being received under the farm retirement scheme that should have been examined in depth before now. Those schemes should not have to be suspended in order to be re-examined. A completely different approach must be adopted.

I believe also that the co-operatives could play a large part in this regard. They have been the leaders in effectively developing many channels of agriculture and so far have kept out of the acquisition of land for their suppliers and farmers in their areas. I hope the Minister will recognise the possibilities in this area. For example, if individual farmers, working to a farm plan, have less than the required acreage for a viable operation the Land Commission should be able to pass such applicants thereby enabling speedy transfer of the land involved.

Another bone of contention is the method of payment for land. Land bonds present a real problem. They tend to scare off people who might be thinking of disposing of land, and many old people, particularly, believe they are not redeemable. The reality is that if a person gives up his land by agreement with the Land Commission land bonds can be taxed in a few months. I cannot see the need for land bonds when people are willing to hand up their land at reasonable prices. The commission should look closely at the system.

The greatest problem in agriculture today is the under utilisation of land. In some areas we have had the collapse of manufacturing industry and more people will have to live from our land resource if the country is to be taken out of the mess it is in. If one looks at the amount of money coming to agriculture from the EEC in the last ten years one will see that we benefited considerably and it is regrettable that we have not made better use of that money to ensure proper land usage and restructuring. A recent report by An Foras Talúntais stated that 50 per cent of our farmers are older than 55 years and hold five million acres. The report gave very interesting figures in relation to land movement. Only 3 per cent of land was in pasture and crops and only .06 per cent changed hands each year by way of gifts, inheritance and normal transfers — about 64,000 acres changed hands per year. That alone must indicate to the Minister that he must approach the matter of land restructure very quickly.

The Fianna Fáil White Paper on land usage was referred to during the debate. I ask the Minister to examine it closely because the farming members of Fianna Fáil spent considerable time examining ways and means which we thought were the best approach to land usage generally. We put our views to the Minister at the time and the Minister now in the House should not have any qualms of conscience about using our proposals in his Land Bill.

We proposed a surcharge on farmers above the £70 valuation figure, the money to be used to subsidise farmers in the £20 to £40 PLV bracket, though I do not think we should be using that term these days. The Minister may be inclined to put his own damper on some of the proposals but he would be doing a good day's work if he used that White Paper in toto because it is a well-researched document containing desirable proposals.

In February An Foras Talúntais issued a report containing an interesting article about how land is being misused. It is by Mr. Gerry Boyle. He showed that an examination of growth performance on a sample of farms between 1973 and 1977 indicated that a small group of farmers, 24 per cent, achieved impressive growth, but about 50 per cent showed very poor growth levels. About 46 per cent of farms achieved either no growth or a decline in real terms in 1977.

Therefore, as I have said, how to achieve better use of land is the most important job for any Minister or Department. The civil service have their own way of doing things but it is my opinion that this requires an approach similar to Posts and Telegraphs and telecommunications. A person should be put in charge of the Land Commission who as a matter of urgency would restructure the organisation to try to ensure that the land that is being wasted at the moment would be put to work. It is generally accepted that about 25 per cent of Irish farmers are totally efficient, making maximum use of their land. They put a reasonably good gloss on the average, but if we look at the other 75 per cent we will find their performance is pathetic.

We must approach land utilisation as a matter of urgency. Money will have to be provided and we must look to the coops. In the next ten years we must get our land into production, our cattle numbers up, because our national herd is our biggest investment in the future. We must get the land into proper hands and we must get the land for young farmers.

Mr. Dowling

I dtús báire ba mhaith liom comhgháirdeas a dhéanamh leis an Aire Stáit as ucht a thoghtha i gceannas cúrsaí talmhaíochta. Gura fada buan a théarma ann. Ba mhaith liom freisin mo chomhgháirdeas a ghabháil le urlabhraí an Fhreasúra as ucht a thoghtha don phost sin.

What was intended to be an enabling Bill for the provision of additional money for land bonds has developed into a major discussion on the whole area of land acquisition and redistribution. It is appropriate that that should be the case. Much has been said about the operations of the Land Commission, their usefulness and how they might be changed, updated and improved. We all agree with the fundamental concept that agriculture is a vital national resource, that no matter what other resources may be developed and exhausted, agriculture will remain the same.

It is equally a matter of great concern that so much agricultural land, not only here but throughout the world, is being concreted over, and due thought is not being given to the type of land that should be used for building purposes. That was referred to earlier today. The possibility of a land policy was talked about by successive Governments but little has been achieved.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.