I join with other Senators in welcoming this Bill and indeed in welcoming the policy which underlines it — the policy of this Government to ensure that the natural resources of this country are used to the maximum. In great measure that is what points to the difference between the policy of this Government in many areas and the policy of their predecessors. This Government believe that the natural resources of this country must be used to the maximum and that people who have the opportunity of using these natural resources are given every assistance to use those resources properly, whether they be in the area of forestry, of fisheries, peat development or above all, our most important resource, the land. This Government by giving every support possible will continue to ensure that people will use that resource constructively and properly.
Despite what the previous speaker said, I look on this Bill as being one measure along the road in that direction, one measure which is an indication of this Government's commitment to ensure that our most important natural resource, namely our land, can be used and used properly. The word "cobwebs" has been used. We must wipe away the cobwebs from the structures surrounding the land and the use of land. We must make land a little more free to ensure that those who have the ability to use it do so properly. The Taoiseach was reported in The Irish Times on 31 March 1984 as speaking the previous day at the annual conference of the Regional Studies Association in Dublin when he spelled out the position of the Government regarding land. I quote:
"We cannot afford to see it lying idle or under-utilised on any wide scale."
Too much of our land was not being used productively and the first objective of any new land policy must be to promote the most efficient use of land. A greater degree of land mobility was the necessary first step.
That remark from the Taoiseach underlines the policy behind this Bill. The Minister of State must be complimented for the work he has undertaken in 18 months in office, not merely in promoting this Bill but in promoting many other measures which will see legislative form in the months to come and will allow greater mobility in land and reform a land structure badly in need of reform.
It may be no harm to refer to the editorial in The Irish Times of the same day, 31 March, and I quote:
The scheme of medium term land leasing which the Government has introduced should go a considerable way towards achieving this aim. It will encourage a greater mobility — a passing of underused land to active, adventurous men and women, and hopefully it will end the short term pernicious letting of acreage, which leads to ill use and impoverishment of the soil.
Listening to the last speaker I understood that he approved of the 11-month system. I come from the same part of the country as he comes from and I regard the 11-month system as one which leads to nothing but damage to our land. People enter lands on the 11-month system and they do nothing to fertilise those lands or to maintain them in any way, because their tenure there is so short and their aim is simply to get the maximum advantage out of the lands which they occupy. This measure is important in that it facilitates the leasing of land for agricultural purposes for a reasonable period. That is to the advantage of the tenant and the owner of the land in that the land which is occupied is not damaged in any great way. I also welcome the amendments to other legislation contained in this Bill which streamline procedures and remove certain statutory inhibitions from the letting of land.
Particularly in the west in many circumstances it is not convenient for the owner of land actively to farm that land, especially in a part of the country where we have a high proportion of farmers who are not active because they are elderly and perhaps unmarried and have not had the benefit of up-to-date agricultural education. In many of these circumstances there is a genuine fear that if the land is let on anything other than an 11-month system the owner of the land may never regain possession of it. There is a fear of the creeping Land Commission official — I mean simply the Land Commission official who cannot be seen. There is a fear that a notice of inspection will be served and that somebody who lets his land may ultimately lose ownership of the land.
The great benefit of this Bill is that if the powers which it introduces are properly understood people in the west and other parts of the country where we have this type of land owner will appreciate that that danger is no longer present. That must be accepted, bearing in mind the whole history of land in this country. All of us are aware of the importance that the Land Acts played in our history, particularly in the 19th century. We are all aware of the tremendous grá which most people in this country have for the land. We are all aware of the desire that people have to hold on to land which they have and not to lose it under any circumstances. That gradh and historical background must be understood by any Government trying to reform our land structures. If we try to reform without understanding that and the history of Irish land, then we will get nowhere. It is no harm to remember that it is only 110 years since Michael Davitt and Charles Stewart Parnell were coming together to fight for independent ownership of Irish land, and that is a very short time ago. We all know and still meet people who have very definite memories of the land war period.
The proposals contained in this Bill are good when, to be realistic about it, the Land Commission at the moment have not very much money to acquire land. Last year we passed a measure in this House to make more funds available to the Land Commission, but I think that that measure was academic because the money is not there to allow it to be implemented.
Reference was made by Senator Ellis to the fact that young farmers at the end of the seven-year period would be more or less on the road. I do not accept that. If we develop the concept of land leasing and if the market for land leasing increases — and it should increase — then there would be more land for leasing on the market. Any young farmer who would lease land for a period, make use of it and gain by his experience would then be in a position either to buy land for himself from the money he has made during his lease period or to lease other land.
The role of the Land Commission in this is important. The Land Commission are a body who have come in for a great deal of criticism, some of it justified and some of it unjustified. The Land Commission must make people aware of what is behind this idea and ensure that there is an adequate supply of land on the leasing market. It is extremely important that the Land Commission, as the relevant agency, go to the farmers, the landholders who have land available, explain to them what is behind this measure and encourage them to put their land on the market so that the owner of the land is aware that at the end of the day he will not be losing what he and his forefathers fought so hard to achieve and to maintain. Perhaps the ACC could play a role here to ensure that funding is available, and the Government and the Minister could negotiate with them to ensure that a suitable package is made available to tie in with this scheme. Reference has been made by other speakers to the financing of this scheme. The scheme of land leasing will work but money must be made available to finance it.
I have made reference earlier to the question of elderly farmers. One of the problems that this scheme will face is the danger that elderly farmers may feel that by leasing their land and obtaining a substantial rental income from it they may lose out on social welfare benefits. That is one of the reasons why the farm retirement scheme which was introduced about ten years ago did not prove as successful as it should have proved. Some steps must be taken to ensure, on a trial basis at least, that income from land leased for a certain period would not in any way damage certain categories of land owners' social welfare entitlement. If it debars them from social welfare entitlement then I can see this scheme running into certain difficulties and it will not be successful.
Senator Ellis said that large farmers would be the people who would lease land and that the young farmer would not have the opportunity to do so. From the reading of the Bill it seems to me that the power of the Land Commission under section 12 of the 1965 Land Act still exists. I would like the Minister to clarify this. Will every lease still be subject to Land Commission consent? If every lease is subject to Land Commission consent I would like to see the Minister establishing pretty general criteria which the Land Commission would adhere to in giving their consent for land leases. I would certainly be worried if the very big farmers were involving themselves in leasing and the provisions of this Bill were not being made available for the younger and less well off farmer. If the power contained in section 12 remains then I would like to see criteria being established by which consent would be given.
It is important that the role of the Land Commission in this be carefully stated. There is a fear that if land is leased or is used by anybody other than the registered owner, the Land Commission will serve an inspection notice and take steps to acquire the lands. I would like the Minister's view on this and his assurance that in the event of anybody leasing land, at the end of the lease period the Land Commission will not be coming around threatening the registered owner with a notice of inspection or a take-over of the land in question.
If we are to encourage the passing of land—perhaps this is slightly outside the scope of the Bill — and earlier transfer of land from one generation to another, certain areas of policy also need to be looked at. The Government have taken certain steps which might not have been helpful in that direction. I am referring in particular to certain stamp duty reliefs which have been effected by recent Finance Acts and budgets. The Minister, as the person responsible for restructuring of land and reform of land occupation, should take steps to ensure that certain provisions existing in the area of stamp duty, which are not encouraging to people to transfer in their lifetime should be looked at once again.
It is important that the Land Commission procedures in so far as the compulsory acquisition of lands is concerned should be reformed. They are the most archaic, unworkable and ridiculous procedures existing. I say that as a solicitor who has had many dealings with the Land Commission examiners branch dealing with matters of this nature. Recently I had the opportunity of attending a meeting of the law society with other Oireachtas solicitors. Dealing with this Bill, that point was raised very trenchantly. Totally outmoded procedures which exist in the Examiners Branch of the Land Commission should be changed. Many people whose lands have been acquired by the Land Commission complain that they have been held up for years, not getting their land bonds. The reason for delays frequently lies with legal people, but these delays in turn lie with unworkable procedures. Everybody would be well served if these procedures were reexamined.
I am a little curious about section 4 of the Bill which relates to land purchase annuities and gives the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture power to waive annuities of less than £2 in any one year. My understanding was that annuities of less than £2 had been abolished by the Land Commission approximately two years ago and that everybody with an annuity of less than £2 received a letter from the Land Commission informing him that he had received automatic redemption without paying anything. Why is this provision now contained in the Bill when something of that nature has been operational? Secondly, I wonder why the £2 figure is contained in the Bill. The Minister might consider an amendment on Committee Stage which would increase the £2 to another figure which would give future Ministers in a few years time, with increasing inflation, the power to consider the abolition of annuities which at that time would be of a very small amount.
The payment of an annuity by a landholder creates a feeling that is less than a fee simple owner and that the Land Commission have a power which they do not have. It would be no harm if the Minister or the Land Commission could have a circular sent to all occupiers of land in the country indicating the redemption value of their annuities at present and encouraging people to purchase out these annuities. A substantial section of the Land Commission in Michael Davitt House in Castlebar is concerned purely with dealing with the collection of annuities. The sooner these things are cleaned up the better.
I welcome section 7 which deals with the dissolution of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund. I understand that when the Government of Ireland Act was passed in 1920 the fund existing at that time was apportioned as between the Irish Free State, as it then was, and the Six Counties. I am wondering as a matter of curiosity if the fund still exists in Northern Ireland. This seems to be another area where our laws are now changing and I wonder if the laws there have changed in the same direction.
I welcome the Bill as one of the measures the Minister is taking to reform the whole land structure. He must be complimented for introducing it and for the steps he has taken in relation to the division of commonages which will also make land available and ensure that land as a natural resource is more properly used.