Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. Over the years, various land agencies, including the Land Commission, have played a major role in restructuring land and giving farmers and tenants an opportunity to use the land to good effect. I was one of those who signed a contract with the Land Commission on 13 May 1971 to swap land as part of a major restructuring project. The pilot project in the parish of Aghabog where I lived at the time involved a large amount of land and the Land Commission did a good job in restructuring the farms in question.

I thank the staff of the Land Commission, particularly those based in the Farnham Street office in Cavan. The Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith, will know them well. They have done a good a job, often in difficult circumstances, trying to sort out titles and many other issues. They have always been helpful in my dealings with the office and I hope they will be dealt with in an amicable manner as part of any programme of changes. They should not be required to move office, for example, although I would welcome a move to County Monaghan, nor should they be placed under pressure to move against their will.

While the Land Commission has worked well over the years, question marks have frequently arisen regarding the way in which various lands were divided and distributed. I make no apology for raising the possibility of political interference. I have first-hand knowledge of some of the carry-on associated with the division of land. I was promised that a farm would be divided three years hence but when it was discovered I was one of the beneficiaries, every effort was made to block the division. Another example of the negative side of land division concerned one of my uncles who had a ministerial order lodged against the disposal of his farm on the morning of the proposed sale. This removed his right to engage in the free and fair sale of his property and he was given bonds instead of money. I accept, however, that there are two sides to the argument.

By the 1990s there was general agreement that the Land Commission had served its purpose. This legislation will wind up the commission as we know it. Millions of hectares of land have changed hands under its aegis. Approximately 3,500 people stand to benefit from the proposal to write off annuities below a threshold of €200, a welcome measure given the small sums involved and the cost of administering the current system. It should also be noted that a commitment was made to write off annuities approximately 12 years ago.

The threshold of €200 per annum must be reconsidered. If it is possible to justify writing off annuities below €200 per annum, it is also reasonable to remove them for those paying less than €500 per annum. Will the Minister consider making such provision, particularly in light of the need to ensure the legislation is the final Bill to address this issue? We do not want to return to this issue in future, nor should we introduce enforcement orders as they would make the Government appear like the landlords of a previous era. We want the Bill to be as comprehensive as possible.

While the legislation provides for the introduction of special arrangements for those paying annuities above €200 per annum, it also provides that these arrangements will be curtailed if the payees in question have arrears. Lands bought before the early 1970s were sold at a reasonable rate, whereas much of the land sold in the 1980s changed hands at an extraordinarily high price and at interest rates of up to 18%. It is no longer tenable to allow this to continue. This is also true of house purchases made at the time in respect of which some people signed up for excessive interest rates. Deputies were promised that this matter would be rectified some years ago. Although the numbers affected in the area of housing are small, those who cannot escape the net in which they find themselves will continue to suffer. Therefore, I beg the Minister to reconsider the issue of arrears.

The Minister should consider capitalising arrears or other measures which would ensure that those we claim to be trying to help are given a proper opportunity to get out of the terrible circumstances in which they find themselves. Many of those in arrears bought land when it was expensive and interest rates were high. I suggest capitalising the arrears and increasing the write-off from 25% to 50%. I have not plucked this figure from the air because a previous Bill, which passed through the Houses in the early 1990s, provided for a 50% discount for those who could afford to avail of it.

I do not propose to defend those who may be in arrears because they are not prepared to pay. Others, however, have a genuine reason for being in arrears and are unable to secure a deal from their bank without first being offered a realistic settlement. The House discussed the difficulties facing small farmers and the inability of those aged under 20 years to obtain grant aid. I am sure some of the people in question have arrears. They may even have destocked to pay off their debts and cannot afford to get grant aid for housing. The Minister indicated that each case would be considered on its merits. It is vital that this commitment is met. Our problem is that once the legislation is passed, people can have the book thrown at them. To avoid such circumstances the Bill must be amended to rectify the current anomaly.

The Bill also provides for the recovery of debts by making deductions from headage payments, single payments and other sources. This is a draconian measure. In many cases these payments are a farmer's main source of income. I have already encountered a number of cases of deductions being made from payments. Although some improvements were made following my strong representations, we must ensure that deductions are not made automatically.

I note also that deductions may also be made from third parties. Section 6 provides extensive powers to remove money from a third party, for example, in the form of creamery cheques. Frequently, the people who are in difficulty do not have bank accounts and good creameries and co-operatives are the only place they can get fertiliser, meal and so on. It will be a serious development if Land Commission annuities are deducted from their creamery cheques.

This legislation provides an opportunity to rectify the matter of annuities once and for all, albeit at a cost. The write-off threshold should be increased from €200 to €500 per annum and arrears above this threshold should be capitalised to ensure people are not prevented from entering the scheme. It twists the farmer's arm to clear up arrears. Why was he in arrears? Could he go to the bank or building society and get this money easily? No, he is in arrears because he could not do that. If farmers are forced to pay the arrears before they can get the 25% discount, which I suggest should be 50%, many of them will not be able to do it. There must be a realistic measure to allow this to work.

I was a senior member of the IFA in the 1980s and we dealt with many difficulties on farms that involved banks. When explanations were given, bankers came to sensible and realistic decisions that allowed people to move forward. I give credit to those private institutions where the usual purpose is to make profit. We should work together on this, as Government and Opposition, to ensure a realistic solution is brought about.

This Bill should be changed so it addresses the arrears issue. We should look at those who are making a genuine effort to pay and their family situation. Only 2,500 farmers are in these circumstances and we can ensure everything possible is done one last time to give them an opportunity to solve this problem. The Minister has it in her hands to make the right decision on this and ensure that the changes that are necessary in the Bill are introduced on Committee Stage.

The Minister said that 49 people are owed arrears of €1 million. I do not mean we should help those who are clearly not making an effort to meet their arrears, however, I am talking about genuine people whose family circumstances dramatically changed due to sickness. To leave someone with the full debt on his hands because he cannot go to the bank to erase the arrears will not solve the problem. If he can get the discount like everyone else, the Minister is fulfilling the commitment she made to do something.

Compulsory purchase orders are topical. Farmers are being forced to sell land regardless of whether they want to. The Government introduced a measure in the last budget where if two farmers on opposing sides of a road agree, they can avoid stamp duty. The Government, however, cannot run away from the commitment it made before the last election that compulsory purchase orders would be dealt with in a realistic way. Deputy Finian McGrath talked about the housing situation in Dublin, but farmers are being forced out of business by compulsory purchase orders. Their farms are being divided and it is becoming a serious problem. I was with a dairy farmer recently who was forced to sign an agreement that he could no longer allow his cattle to walk the road. His lands are on either side of the road and a tunnel is not being built for him. This is not directly related to the Bill but I must take this opportunity to raise the problems in farming that are not being taken into account by the Government and that must be addressed if farmers are to remain on the land.

The Bill refers to estates that are to be kept for other purposes. The green areas of Dublin, such as the Phoenix Park, are some of its main assets and we must ensure they are not abused.

In recent years, I have dealt with the Land Commission to secure clearance for a son or daughter to build on land for which there was no title. In rural areas, we want to see people moving in but we must be wary about who comes and where they go to live. They must not raise issues about pollution and people spreading slurry. When I was in the IFA, a Meath farmer sold a site to a friend who was not able to remain there for long. The site was sold on and the person who bought it took a case against the farmer because of the noise of his milking machine and put the farmer out of business. Farmers need to be wary of planning issues and that the nitrates directive does not force them down the same road.

I support the principle behind the Bill. As a person who benefited from the Land Commission in the past and will benefit to a degree from this final write-off, I welcome it. If it is to work, however, changes will have to be made. There must be an increase in the annual threshold from €200 to €500 and the 25% write-off should be increased to 50%, as was the case in the last Bill. Above all, the Minister must take into account those who are in arrears for genuine reasons — the land commissioners can help to decide that. If this Bill is to work and deliver what we want it to deliver that must be done.

See this speech in context