Dáil debates

Thursday, 24 February 2005

Land Bill 2004 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

 

3:00 pm

Photo of Denis NaughtenDenis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)

The Minister will have an opportunity to speak later. We can debate this in detail on Committee Stage.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is not prepared to do that in regard to people who have broken the law. People have gone to jail for not paying a fine imposed for not having a dog licence or a television licence — they cannot pay by instalments because the Minister will not make provision for that. However, the Minister is introducing this here to provide legal powers to support the Jensen case. The difficulty is that these are extremely extensive powers. Section 6 gives power to take money from third parties in the form of, for example, creamery cheques. This is a more extensive power than the banks currently have. It could leave farmers in severe financial difficulty, and there are no protections such as the Minister spoke about in the legislation. It is important that such protections are in place and that this power comes into play only when due and full consideration has been given to every other available avenue and the payment plans have been adopted and accepted by both parties. That is not the case. This protects the Department by supporting the decision of the European Court of Justice in the Jensen case. The purpose of this legislation is to make that decision legal in Ireland and I believe it is questionable.

Let me turn to some other elements of the Bill. The Minister mentioned that approximately 500 properties are held by local trusts set up by the Land Commission and that many properties are not maximising their potential benefit to the community in which they are located. The measure proposed by the Minister to facilitate the transfer of trust lands will be of huge benefit to GAA clubs and other sporting clubs where there has been a question over title. However, in a number of these trusts around the country there is major controversy regarding how lands have been utilised over recent years. Will this measure provide them with a blank cheque to do what they like with lands once they get the title in their name? This is something we need to tease out on Committee Stage. I want to see those lands utilised for the benefit of communities. In one town the community decided to offer the land as industrial land to attract investment and everyone in the community has benefited. In another town where an industrialist was prepared to come in, the trust refused to give any land and that town is literally dying. This issue needs to be examined in further detail and can be teased out on Committee Stage. I would not like to see the proposed measure abused but I can see how it might be of genuine benefit to a community.

The repeal of section 12 of the Bill is a positive measure because it is pointless for the Department to continue to have a role in controlling the subdivision and letting of lands.

Let me turn to section 45 of the Bill. Under EU regulations any EU or EEA national can buy land here. Therefore, the provision applies only to people from outside those areas. I have no difficulty with anybody from any part of the world buying land here, but I have a difficulty with people who buy land and then seem to believe they own the whole countryside, whether they are from the European Union or outside it, or have come down from Dublin. The Minister knows exactly what I am talking about. I have come across cases where people from Dublin come down to the country and when slurry is spread — not pig slurry but ordinary cattle slurry — they complain to the local authority and world war three breaks out. People must realise that if they are going to live in the country they must accept some of the practices there. I have no difficulty with someone coming to live in a community, but they must buy into that community and look at issues from the point of view of what is in the interests of the community rather than what is in their own interests.

Farmers need to be more conscious of planning applications in rural communities. In one instance a young man had no difficulty with someone building beside him. However, the only area where he could spread slurry was on three fields surrounding the site in question. He entered on observation on the planning file. The developer signed it and has no difficulty with slurry being spread. If he had not done that, in the context of the nitrates directive, that individual could have been in dire straits. The Department of Agriculture and Food needs to take a more proactive approach to the structure of county development plans to ensure that farmers are protected. We are not talking about an abuse of the system. If farmers break the law they should be dealt with in the same way as everyone else. However, where common agricultural practice is taking place, that should not be prohibited or farmers persecuted for it by individuals around the country.

On the provisions of the Bill generally, it is proposed to repeal and replace section 28(1) of the Land Act 1931 which relates to vesting orders. I hope this issue is simplified. Would it be possible before Committee Stage to examine the structure of the notices issued to individuals? An elderly man of 80 years of age came to me in the past couple of months when one such notice was issued to him in the post. It was like double Dutch to him so he brought it to me. I have seen many such legal documents over the years and am fairly well up to speed on such matters, but I could not decipher it. There is not much point in sending such notices. If the notice stated that somebody down the road was getting the parcel of land next door and asked whether he had an objection to it, he could make a decision. However, the notice as it is set out is indecipherable and needs to be explained in plain English.

My final request to the Minister is to recognise her staff in Farnham Road in Cavan. They are excellent, but they are currently working in extremely difficult circumstances. They should be given the additional resources they need to continue to do their job. The Ceann Comhairle is well aware of the type of work they have done in recent years. They are a credit to the Department of Agriculture and Food but should be given the resources. If not, huge problems will be caused which will restrict the implementation of the legislation given that the issue of title will not be resolved for many individuals because the Minister's officials will be unable to address it.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.