Noel Coonan (Fine Gael)

I wish her well in her job, as I do Deputy Brendan Smith and Deputy Browne who have been appointed Ministers of State. I acknowledge the contribution made by the former Minister, Deputy Walsh. I paid tribute to him at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food.

I welcome the publication of this Bill. It has taken some time to come before the House; it was originally published last summer. It was promised under commitments in the Sustaining Progress partnership agreement. While the Fine Gael Party largely supports the Bill, we have some reservations about a number of its negative aspects which I hope the Minister will address. I intend to introduce amendments on Committee Stage to afford her an opportunity to improve and enhance it.

The provision for farmers to buy out land annuities, if fully taken up, would extinguish the further collection of annuities, result in less paperwork and bureaucracy for the Department and bring to an end an outdated system for collecting land annuities which originated in the 19th century. I have concerns about aspects of the Bill, however, including the total write-off of annuities and arrears for farmers who pay less than €200 per annum. The farm organisations also have difficulty with the threshold in the provision, which the Fine Gael Party will propose to increase to €500 per annum in an amendment. Departmental officials have stated that the cost of collecting sums of this size, even if paid in full, would exceed the total amount they generate. The ICMSA and the IFA have called for annuities of less than €500 to be written off and we will support them by tabling an amendment to that effect.

The 25% discount provided for in the Bill is too low to make the package attractive. The farm organisations, the ICMSA and the IFA, insist that this threshold must be increased to 50% and I will propose an amendment to this effect. They also point out that Sustaining Progress includes a specific commitment to easing the burden experienced by farmers who pay land annuities. It is important to note that the reduced rate only applies to those who pay their arrears in full, which will also present problems. Why can this scheme not provide for a 50% discount for a buy-out, given that the previous buy-out scheme, in 1992, provided for such a discount?

The Bill offers no assistance to those with significant arrears. Farmers cannot participate in the reduced buy-out option until arrears are paid in full. The ICMSA has criticised the Department for not offering to assist farmers with arrears. Where a farmer has arrears, an agreement should be reached on a payment plan over several years with no interest charge. Department officials and the Minister have confirmed that interest rates on annuities are often significantly higher than today's interest rates. The Minister cited a figure of 11% but I am aware of rates of as high as 18% dating back to when purchases were contracted in the 1970s and 1980s. Given that farmers have paid much too much interest over the years, there is scope to review the provision on arrears and I will table an amendment on the matter on Committee Stage.

I am also concerned that the legislation continues the tradition of securing annuity payments from the Department's agricultural payments, such as headage. It provides that the Department may claw back headage premium payments from farmers against land annuities. This could present significant difficulties for farmers struggling to meet other commitments and reinforces the argument that the Department must do more to assist farmers by developing a structured payment scheme to allow them to pay annuities arrears.

I understand the practice of offsetting annuity payments against departmental payments ceased in 1993 because it was deemed illegal by the European Court of Justice. Following the court's decision, the European Union advised member states to stop the practice but in 1998 the Danish Government challenged the ruling, taking what was to become known as the Jensen case before the Court of Justice. It won the case, which has allowed the Minister to introduce the current proposal. The Department argues that it will only seek to take arrears from domestic payments, such as headage, rather than EU payments. This could create hardship, particularly for farmers in financial difficulties who may not be in a position to pay their land annuity. Safeguards, as proposed by the IFA, should be created to ensure that farmers who cannot avail of the new buy-out deal are given an opportunity to restructure their payments to ensure they are able to make their annuity payments in full in the future.

The timescale for the buy-out scheme raises further concerns. The proposal to impose a six month limit is not acceptable because farmers may not be able to take up the offer immediately due to increased pressure, although they may be able to do so at a later date. The scheme should not be introduced until the single farm payment is made next year. From where does the Minister propose that farmers will get the money to buy out annuities?

The proposals regarding sports and community trustee lands are welcome as they will enable clubs and community groups to develop such lands to allow for better facilities and grounds.

As the Minister stated, the Land Commission was established in 1881 as a rent fixing body. The commission developed by law into a tenant purchase agency and assisted with the purchase by tenants of 13.5 million acres of land. It embarked on a countrywide programme of land structural reform and became a major purchaser and distributor of land until 1983 when it ceased acquiring land. Clearly, it played a vital role in the development of agriculture. That the Irish Land Commission (Dissolution) Act of 1992 was not signed into law until March 1999 is indicative of how things are done here.

There are lessons to be learned in the context of today's developments, particularly as regards transport infrastructural development. While there is no doubting the necessity to build motorways throughout the State, the roads building programme is ravaging farm holdings. There is scope for the Minister to listen to and help farmers affected by the programme, many of whom will not be able to purchase land. Available land could be transferred from one farmer to another but many farmers are unable to compete to buy land because in many areas there is no land for sale. However, land could be offset between holdings. In addition, the Minister could establish a group under the legislation to assist farmers in purchasing and transferring land and relocating in certain areas.

Many farmers with small holdings, whose land is purchased compulsorily for many reasons, cannot compete for land on the open market against the larger farmers, industrialists, non-nationals, to whom the Minister referred, and companies who are buying up the land. The Minister should take this problem on board and help out the farmers concerned. The farming community is calling for assistance and I ask the Minister to listen and help farmers. I propose that she establish an interdepartmental group to help farmers reconsolidate their holdings following the construction of the necessary road infrastructure in the coming years.

From today the Minister should take on board certain other issues although they may not relate directly to the Land Bill. One concerns the need to remove capital gains tax on the sale of land to farmers where the proceeds are reinvested into the development of farm land. Another is the need to eliminate stamp duty on the purchase of land from farmers by full-time farmers.

Farming organisations are looking forward to dealing with the Minister and seem to believe she is a breath of fresh air. The other significant issue she will need to address, as she knows well, is that it is not acceptable to impose capital gains tax on compensation paid for land purchased through compulsory purchase orders. I ask her to tackle this today.

It would be remiss of me not to avail of the opportunity to ask the Minister to take immediate action on the annual problem of farmers being ripped off by the meat factory cartel. Year in, year out farmers have to protest in the rain and snow up to and after Christmas to get a fair price for their livestock. The Minister needs to tackle this immediately and there is no point letting it drift from one year to the next. It can be solved but will require resolve on her part and on the part of factories and farmers.

Addressing the question of the live export markets would help in this regard. This represents a challenge for the Minister. Her predecessor made various announcements in recent years on the opening up of markets in the Middle East and Africa but this has not happened. We will be depending on the Minister to address this issue. Given that she is close to the islands off the Donegal coast, perhaps she knows what it is like to transport animals and, therefore, will help farmers to gain access to Middle East and African markets.

Before the Minister entered the Chamber, I would have endorsed the Bill wholeheartedly. However, having listed to her I am a little concerned about it. We will have to study it further. It is a bit like the curate's egg in that it is good in spots and not so good in others. We hope to support the Bill. I have pointed out some possible amendments that I am asking the Minister to take on board. I hope she will look favourably on them on Committee Stage.

I wish the Minister well in her job. Given her former position as Minister for Social and Family Affairs, I ask her to think of farmers' spouses, usually wives. In agricultural terms, they do not exist when it comes to applying for social welfare. The Minister will now have to tackle this problem from the other side. I know she is all about caring so I ask her to care in particular for the wives of farmers.