asked the Minister for Agriculture, whether he is aware that the owners of untenanted land throughout the country are selling their land holdings, with the evident intention of evading the provisions of the Land Act, and whether the Minister will take steps to have it made generally known that the purchasers of such land are liable to have such land resumed by the Land Commission for the purpose of enlarging uneconomic holdings.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. [ORAL ANSWERS.] - EVASION OF LAND ACT.
Mr. HOGAN
I am not aware that there is any considerable increase in the sale of untenanted land. I have already stated on the 27th July, in answer to a similar question, that the Government cannot interfere, or that I cannot interfere, with an owner's right to sell his property, but that the sale of property or the creation of freeholds or tenancies now does not in any way interfere with or modify the right of the Land Commission under the Land Act, 1923, to acquire land compulsorily for the purposes of the Act. The fact that "A" has sold his land, and that "B,""C," and "D" are now the owners, makes no difference.
The Deputy should remember that there is power to acquire land, not only from a landlord, so called, but also from a tenant purchaser or a tenant. The Land Commission will acquire land from either class if they require it. Any attempt to prevent the sale of land pending the operation of the Land Act would not increase in any way the powers of the Land Commission, but would only have the effect of decreasing the value of all the land of the country, and the farmers, big and small, since they own far the greatest area, would be the greatest sufferers by such a policy.
Arising out of that answer, I would like to ask the Minister if he would not consider the advisability of publishing in some shape or form the fact that it is quite probable that in the case of any untenanted land that is sold now with the idea of evading the provisions of the Land Act, that the Land Commission will take up that land and divide it? The publication of such a notice would have the effect of stopping this.
Mr. HOGAN
I have already answered that question. The Land Act is there and everyone knows the provisions of it. If such a statement as the Deputy suggests were to be published it should not be confined to what the Deputy calls untenanted land. We would have to include tenanted land as well, and I would be surprised to hear any Farmer Deputy suggesting that we should publish a statement that no tenant should sell his holding.
Arising out of that, I wish to say I did not mean to make that statement about tenants' land. I meant untenanted land. I also wish to point out that everybody does not know the Land Act.
Mr. HOGAN
I wish to point out clearly that the Land Commission will make no discrimination between what the Deputy calls landlords, and what I call a tenant, or a tenant purchaser.
Arising out of that is it not a fact that a clear provision is contained in the recent Land Act whereby the Land Commission, or the Minister for Agriculture, can review all sales made since December twelve months.
Mr. HOGAN
I have referred to that.
That is the position I want to make clear.