Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Leas Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak to this important legislation. I welcome the debate owing to our history and the connection of the people to the land. Evidence of the people's historic bond with the land is found in the lives of great statesmen like Michael Davitt who worked with the Land League. I pay tribute to the work he did on the land question over many years. I will try to follow his tradition in the House as it is something from which we can all learn. It is relevant to the current log-jam in the peace process, a way out of which is for the people to come together and adopt Michael Davitt's approach by co-operating through democratic and peaceful means.

It would be remiss of me in dealing with the Bill to fail to refer to land speculation and the price of housing. It is a scandal that young people cannot afford to buy houses owing to the price of land, especially in urban areas. The housing crisis, which is relevant to this debate, must be confronted. Approximately 100,000 people are on local authority housing waiting lists while others attempt to buy land and build within the communities in which they grew up. Despite many negative comments from some Members, I support such people strongly. To honour everybody's entitlement to buy or build on family land within their own locality where possible does not necessarily imply a cost to the environment. People in rural areas need our support.

We must consider the quality of planning in urban areas. We face the scandal of overdevelopment and a lack of planning, including in my constituency where blocks of apartments are built in areas in which housing has traditionally been two storeys high. I urge caution in planning and call on Ministers and those dealing with the land question to ensure we have quality in planning throughout the system.

Unlike many other Deputies, I have never walked away from the issue of ground rents. I regret that the issue has not been dealt with in this legislation given its direct connection with the land. I support the highly organised campaign by the National Association of Tenants Organisations and ACRA to abolish ground rents and urge the Government to introduce legislation to meet their demands. I commend and thank Mr. Tony O'Toole of ACRA for the work he has done on this matter.

The debate is broad. Ireland has a long history of dealing with landlordism which has blighted the country. Unfortunately, many of those exploiting people today are our own, home-based landlords. As one will see from a reading of the explanatory memorandum, the Land Commission was established in 1881 as a rent fixing body under the Land Law (Ireland) Act of the same year. It developed under subsequent legislation into a tenant purchase agency and assisted with the purchase by tenants of approximately 13.5 million acres. Ultimately, the commission embarked on a countrywide programme of land structural reform and became a great purchaser and distributor of land. Acquisition of land by the commission ceased in 1983 and the Irish Land Commission (Dissolution) Act 1992 came into operation on 31 March 1999. The property of the commission and the functions of the land commissioners were transferred to the Minister for Agriculture and Food. I pay tribute to the Land Commission, from the operations of which many people benefited, especially smaller farmers.

The Bill deals with land purchase and land reclamation annuities, the simplification of transfer of ownership and the amendment of various Land Acts to facilitate simpler, more efficient administration. The Bill proposes to discharge all land purchase annuities and land reclamation annuities amounting to €200 or less per annum, including arrears. This will allow farmers to clear their existing land annuities at a discount of 25% subject to all outstanding arrears being paid in full. The Bill empowers the Department to set off any payments due to be made by it to a person holding an annuity against any arrears of the annuity owed by that person to the Minister and-or the Department. An important aspect of the Bill is that it provides the Land Registry with the power to refuse to register a transfer of land or part of land subject to land purchase or land reclamation annuity where the annuity is in arrears. The Land Bill provides that the Minister may, at the request of the trustees, transfer former Land Commission trust property and effect change of ownership of these properties in the Land Registry office. This additional provision is to be made subject to the provisions which already apply to the power of the Minister to authorise disposal of trust property by the trustees. Provisions are also made to give legal authority to previous Government decisions to write off small land purchase or land reclamation annuities.

The term "land reclamation" reminds me of the attempt in my constituency over the last 15 years to reclaim land in Dublin Bay. As someone who has supported the efforts of Mr. Seán Dublin Bay Loftus to save the bay, I take the opportunity presented by this debate to discuss the matter. In October 1999, Dublin Port Company Limited applied to fill in 52 acres of Dublin Bay. The application was rejected in March 2000 after independent consultants found the environmental impact statement was inadequate. On 7 March 2002, Dublin Port Company Limited reapplied to fill in the same 52 acres. The independent consultant reported on the environmental impact study in September 2002 and the application remains current.

While an attempt continues to be made to build land development in Dublin Bay, every Member should support Mr. Loftus and the local committee of Dublin Bay Watch in their efforts to preserve it. I am very concerned by the lack of encouraging signs from the Department of the Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. If the Minister proceeds with the application, there will be serious trouble. We will need every help to defeat the attempt to fill in 52 acres of Dublin Bay. My objective is to protect and preserve what remains of the amenities of Dublin Bay. I commend Mr. Seán Dublin Bay Loftus, a former Member of this House, on his work in recent years, particularly on this issue. I also commend the group in which he is directly involved.

It is up to the Members of this House to present alternative proposals. Other ports need to be developed. One has only to travel to County Louth to see ports such as Dundalk and Drogheda which require development. This should be done rather than overcrowding Dublin Bay. The traffic congestion in Dublin docks always amazes me. One of the largest ports in Europe is in the city centre. We should act to ease the congestion there. It is important to debate this matter.

Another matter directly concerned with the acquisition of land in my constituency concerns the construction of the Dublin Port tunnel. Residents of Marino, Fairview, Santry and Drumcondra have suffered in recent years as a result of cracks in their houses and other damage to their homes. Currently, 178 houses in my constituency have been damaged as a result of construction work on the Dublin Port tunnel. For example, 125 houses have cracks, and a further 27 have hairline cracks. Seven houses have jammed doors and windows, one has a damaged roof and three have plumbing problems. A further three houses have developed major glazing problems while 12 other complaints have been received also. Overall, 178 houses in the Marino, Santry, Drumcondra and Santry areas have been hammered during the construction of the Dublin Port tunnel.

I was involved in the negotiations on this project with the city manager and the city engineer, Mr. Tim Brick. Before the project they informed me that there would be no damage to houses. When they bought the land under the houses, some of the offers they made to people were insulting. Some people in Marino were offered €500 or €600 for a piece of land under their houses. I know that some people received offers of €5,000 but it is appalling to offer elderly pensioners €500 or €600 for land under their homes.

I urge the Minister, the Dublin city manager and Dublin City Council to examine the idea of compensating families who have suffered trauma as a result of the tunnel's construction. We were informed that all houses would be repaired within a 30 metre zone of the tunnel, yet damage has occurred to some houses outside that zone.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have given the Deputy a great deal of latitude on this but I do not think it can be extended.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and I appreciate that he has been flexible in this respect. I will now focus on the legislation. Section 7 facilitates trustees in the transfer to users of former Land Commission trust property by providing the Minister with the power to arrange for the transfer of title of the entire or a part of a trust property when so requested by the trustees, relieving them of the legal and financial burden involved. At present the Minister may consent to a proposal from the trustees that they transfer the entire or a part of a trust property and the legal work necessary to effect a change of ownership in the Land Registry Office is the responsibility of the trustees. About 500 of these trusts exist and the extra powers that are proposed by the Minister in this section should greatly facilitate the transfer of these lands from trust to user ownership. I welcome this important section, particularly given that the measure will facilitate a greater development of sporting and other amenity facilities. Every community needs sporting amenities in addition to housing, schools and factories. Section 7 is pertinent in this regard. I would like to see more land being used to assist local communities. This is a major issue in my constituency which includes the beautiful St. Anne's Park. The park is for the people of Dublin North-Central and so it should remain. l never want to see greedy developers getting their hands on that park land.

Section 9 removes the necessity for meetings of the rules committee consisting of the Secretary General and an assistant secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Food, and the President of the High Court who exercises the jurisdictions of the former judicial commissioner. The power to make rules for carrying into effect certain of the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts is conferred on the Minister by section 3 of the Land Act 1933 but, as currently framed, the section provides that the Minister may only exercise this power with the concurrence of a majority of the rules committee.

Section 10 provides a statutory base for Government decisions made in 1989 and 1992 whereby small amounts — €25.40 or less per annum — in respect of land purchase annuities and land reclamation annuities were written off. While the consent of the Minister for Finance to make statutory instruments providing for the write-offs was obtained, the said statutory instruments should have been made before the write-offs took place. I welcome this section which regularises the position.

Section 11 provides a statutory basis for the Government decision in 1992 which approved concessions to land purchase and land reclamation annuity payers where they were offered the opportunity to buy out their annuities at a discount provided any arrears of such annuities were also paid. However, there was no provision in existing legislation authorising the Minister to accept less than the full amount to buy out such annuities. This section regularises the position.

Section 12 provides, inter alia, for the repeal of section 45 of the Land Act 1965. Under this section all non-qualified persons must get the written consent of an officer authorised by the Minister before acquiring an interest in agricultural land, that is, land not situated in a county borough, borough, urban district or town. This provision was introduced to prevent land in such areas from being acquired by non-Irish persons and corporate bodies. Where land was to be acquired outside these geographical definitions, a purchaser had to be a qualified person. On Ireland's entry into the European Community, it became obvious that the restrictions on purchases of land by non-nationals or, more specifically, by nationals of other member states, imposed by section 45 were contrary to our obligations under the Treaty of Rome. I welcome this section which reflects the reality of the modern, progressive world. The enlargement of the EU has and continues to broaden significantly the categories of qualifying individuals. This matter raises the debate surrounding Irish nationality in the context of the European Union and these issues will arise in the referendum campaign on the European constitution. Many people have concerns about the direction in which some Members of this House are seeking to drag them.

As regards the financial implications of the legislation, the proposals in the Bill provide for a potential contribution to the Exchequer by way of a capital lump sum being paid to it and possible savings in the current administration costs of the Department. From the point of view of the Exchequer, that is an important element of the debate.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this Bill. Historically, Irish people have been closely connected with the land. Thousands of people living in urban areas are descended from small farmers who moved to towns and cities in the past. That bond with the land should never be broken and there should be no divisions between urban and rural areas. Many people living in urban areas have more in common with farming and fishing communities than they have with the wealthy elite. Over the years, it has saddened me that some political parties in the House — although none of their Members is currently in the Chamber — have tried to drive a wedge between urban and rural dwellers. It is important to note that during this debate some Members of the House have sought to promote the vision of an end to the urban-rural divide. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for affording me an opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

James Breen (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Land Bill, particularly the write-off and buy-out of annuities. It paves the way for 7,000 farmers with annuities of over €200 to buy out their annuities with a 25% discount if all outstanding arrears are paid in full. The Bill also provides the Minister with enhanced powers to seek recovery of outstanding land purchase annuity arrears after the operation of the buy-out scheme proposed in the Bill.

It gives the Department the power to off-set payments due to an individual against the annuity arrears owed by him or her and enhances debt collection through the aegis of the courts. If a more generous discount was given and a full year allowed for repayment, both farmers and the Exchequer would be happy.

Many farmers, particularly the smaller ones will be affected by this Bill. To redress farm fragmentation, it must be ensured that anyone who purchased land beside his or her holding and sold an out-farm through someone else must not be penalised by any taxation on that transaction. If there was a capital buy-out percentage of 50%, particularly for those with capital outstanding of €6,000, it would be much more significant than is contained in the Bill and encourage more people to participate. A 25% level will not allow this objective to be achieved. The Bill gives strong powers to the Department of Agriculture and Food to recoup payments. Will the Minister of State allow for more discounts of up to 50% similar to those in place in 1992?

Section 30 of the 1950 Land Act will be amended providing the Minister with greater powers to transfer land subject to a trust set-up under the Land Acts. I hope this will result in transfer of trust land to user groups, as there are approximately 500 Land Act trusts still in existence. In particular I hope it will facilitate the transfer to GAA clubs of approximately 250 GAA grounds still held in trust under the Land Acts.

The Bill deals primarily with better administration of annuities, even in the transfer of trust lands, reducing bureaucracy and reducing the costs of conveyancing transactions on all agricultural land. The Bill may meet one commitment to the farming sector in the partnership process under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and Sustaining Progress. It is designed to achieve several other objectives that blow in the way of farmers. We must have full guarantees that the proposed scheme to allow farmers with land purchase annuities of more than €200 per annum to buy them out will be introduced. If the remaining farmers who have land purchase annuities take final steps towards fully owning their land, the primary objective of the former Land Commission will have been achieved, namely, tenant ownership of agricultural holdings and full unburdened title to the land that all the advantages of full ownership entail. Some 2,300 farmers will be able to avail of this concession to redeem their annuities at a substantial discount of 25%, subject to their annuity payments being up to date.

While I welcome these provisions in the Bill, the Minister of State has it in his power to make rural Ireland more vibrant, particularly the west and the small farmers there. The Land Commission was a great loss to small farmers. When it existed, the larger farmer could not take over land by outbidding the smaller farmer. The small family farm is now becoming a thing of the past. We all recall Michael Davitt and the Land War when families were evicted on Christmas night. This was desperate because the people love their land and farming. Several summers ago, the committee on the Constitution examined the constitutional provisions for property rights to make it easier for people to buy sites for houses and build on their own land. What has happened to the report? It is lying in a Minister's office gathering dust. Will the same happen to the committee's deliberations on the constitutional provisions for family rights? Is the committee wasting its time?

Will the Minister of State make inquiries as to why the property rights Bill has not yet been introduced? A Deputy from Cork asks on nearly every Order of Business when the ground rents Bill will be introduced. I do not believe it will ever be. Land reclamation grants were available to small farmers to reclaim land through drainage schemes, forestry clearance and so on. However, the grant was abolished, placing an enormous burden on small farmers. Will the Minister of State consider reintroducing reclamation grants? Some roads ran two miles from some farmhouses. Now, through compulsory purchase orders, the roads run next to the gable ends of the houses. There is no compensation available for the nuisance this causes.

Large tracts of land belonging to no one are held in the Land Registry office. Will the Minister of State investigate providing this land to small farmers if no one claims it? The Bill states that only a qualified person can buy land. However, I see no restrictions in place as anyone can buy land. Those who wish to build one-off houses on their land are deprived of doing so by planners. Is this fair and just? Parts of west Clare have been denuded of their population. The Milltown Malbay council area was abolished because the population had been greatly reduced by people fleeing rural life. Many now want to return to their communities but obstacles are put in their way by planners. People, some mentally unstable, were unable to fill out forms and did not know their rights. Now they are being penalised.

I know the Minister of State is a level-headed man. Will he inquire into all these matters I have raised to ensure justice is done? Part-time farmers are being discriminated against. I know of one farmer with an off-farm income. The farmer wanted to receive the installation aid for young farmers grant. However, as his employer could not give him time off to put in so many hours of farming training, he is now denied this grant. That gentleman is simply trying to make a go of farming. Several years ago the Government encouraged part-time farming but now it is penalising those farmers.

Paddy McHugh (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

James Breen (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the past the Government encouraged farmers to establish forest plantations. Now those who did so are being penalised because if they cannot get back 50% of their holdings to retain their entitlements, they must rent land. The Government must help farmers over the bias against them.

The Minister of State has the force majeure asset at this disposal. By giving them money under force majeure, he will help farmers who had to sell their livestock in the last year without premiums. In a reply to a parliamentary question I tabled before Christmas, a hint was given that this would be introduced. However, I do not see it happening. Will the Minister ensure that modulation fund is used to the best advantage, particularly for suckler farmers?

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We cannot forget the beef overshoot.

James Breen (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That will seriously penalise farmers. I do not know why the Minister of State is laughing as this is serious business.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a long shopping list.

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He is not laughing, just smiling.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This Land Bill is all-embracing. We have toured all County Clare by now.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They have a great love of the land in County Clare.

James Breen (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have to get my frustrations out somewhere because I have so many constituents telephoning me about how they are penalised. I welcome the Bill.