Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)

I welcome the Land Bill 2004 and its provisions to modernise the legislation on land that was held under the auspices of the former Land Commission. The Land Commission was originally established in 1881 to fix rents. It later became the Tenant Purchase Agency and bought land for tenants. Because many of the tenants were unable to buy the land, the principle of a land annuity was introduced. The capital which was provided to the purchaser by the Land Commission was repaid over a number of years as an annuity. That system facilitated the tenant purchasers to buy their own land over a period, thus easing the burden of repayment as a capital sum. Of its time it was a good idea but the carry-over from that has left a number of farmers carrying on with that annuity, and times have changed significantly.

Irish land law is characterised by its complexity and the archaic nature of some of its provisions. The purpose of the Bill is to simplify the procedures as they apply to agricultural land held under the tenant purchase scheme of 1881.

I broadly welcome the provisions of the Bill to discharge land held under low annuities and provide a mechanism to encourage farmers to clear their annuities at a discount. The outcome of that should be a reduction in the bureaucracy involved in dealing with the annuities and a general tidy up operation of the land annuities.

The level of the annuity to be written off, however, is a very modest €200. That will be welcomed but the level should be increased to €400 as suggested by many of the farming organisations. Increasing the level to €400 would benefit more than 5,000 farmers. Indeed, the cost of collecting an annuity of less than €400 would be greater than the financial gain to be had from retaining the level at €200. That is a financial consideration that should be worked out in terms of raising the level from €200 to €400.

The timescale within which the offer is available is very short. I ask the Minister to consider that in light of difficulties farmers may experience in accessing funding and arranging loans to deal with that. This point was raised by Deputy Naughten previously and it was also raised in the Seanad. Many farmers may not be in a position to avail of the offer within a short timeframe but they may be able to do so over a longer period. They should be given the opportunity to put in place some provisions whereby they could raise the necessary finance to avail of the offer.

Concern has been expressed that the Bill will give rights to the Department to offset other payments due from the Department in lieu of land annuities owed. That is a major point that must be addressed on behalf of farmers. It could cause considerable problems and should be taken into account by the Minister because safeguards are needed to ensure farmers do not become victims of the system and find themselves in further financial difficulty without being given an opportunity to restructure their repayments to allow them to be better able to make the annuity payments in the future. For example, in the case of a farmer not receiving EU payments, the Department will be given authority to seek attachment of moneys due to a farmer from a purchaser of foreign produce. The implications of that for a farmer could be very significant. That point must be addressed.

I welcome the simplification provisions in respect of the transfer and change of ownership of land in trust. That will benefit sporting organisations. It will benefit a number of GAA clubs in particular and allow for investment in their lands within their current use. That is welcome. In light of the recent welcome decisions by the GAA on other fronts, it is appropriate that it should be given the scope and the opportunity to invest. There should be significant community benefit from this measure and in allowing sporting clubs, particularly the GAA, to make this investment, there should be a knock-on effect of benefit to the community. I would welcome that and I hope it happens.

I welcome the abolition of section 45 of the Land Act 1965. I was surprised to find that 300 to 400 applications are still made on an annual basis by persons held to be non-qualified under the 1965 Act and that they have to obtain the consent of the Minister to acquire an interest in agricultural land. The original section 45 was intended to restrict ownership of agricultural land by non-Irish persons and corporate bodies. Whatever the historical reasons for this provision, they are now outdated. We cannot discriminate against EU nationals and, therefore, many people would count as qualified persons. Furthermore, I would be reluctant to uphold a provision that seeks to regulate ownership per se as opposed to use. My colleague, Deputy Naughten, was somewhat concerned that people from Dublin who had land in the country would be put off by the smell of slurry, for instance. I would not have any such concerns. I was not sure what point he was making about qualified persons——

See this speech in context