Amendment No. 1 (a) is out of order as it obviously would impose a charge.
Land Bill, 1949—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 1 put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 (a) not moved.
I move amendment No. 2:—
To add to the section the following new sub-section:—
(2) Where—
(a) the price of untenanted land acquired or purchased by the Land Commission was determined before the passing of this Act whether by agreement or by the fixing thereof under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Land Act, 1923, and
(b) the Land Commission took possession of the land on or after the 1st day of December, 1949, and before the passing of this Act or take possession of the land after the passing of this Act,
the following provisions shall have effect—
(i) application may be made to the Land Commission within six months after the passing of this Act for redetermination of the price of the land,
(ii) on such application being duly made, the price of the land shall again be determined and shall be determined either by agreement or, in default of agreement, by the fixing of the price (as at the date of the previous determination of the price) under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Land Act, 1923, and sub-section (1) of this section,
(iii) if the price so determined is greater than the price previously determined, it shall have effect in lieu of the latter price.
(iv) the Land Commission shall, where appropriate, make an additional advance and issue additional land bonds (bearing the same rate of interest as the land bonds already issued or decided to be issued) for the purchase of the land, and thereupon there shall be payable by the Land Commission, to the person entitled to the receipt of the rents and profits of the land immediately before possession thereof was or is taken by the Land Commission, a sum equal to interest (less income-tax) on the additional land bonds so issued from the date on which the land vested in the Land Commission or the date on which the Land Commission obtain possession of the land (whichever is the later) to the date of the issue of the additional land bonds and that sum shall be in lieu of such (if any) interest as may be appropriate under sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Land Act, 1923,
(v) the agreement or fixing of the price by virtue of this sub-section shall not be regarded for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of this Act as having occurred after the passing of this Act.
The purpose of this amendment is to make the market value provisions of the Bill applicable to pending cases as well as to future cases. There are awaiting a certain number of cases in this pending category. Prices have been settled in most of them. It is, in short, the limit of retrospection which is possible for many reasons under the Bill.
We assume that this means that whatever price is payable under the terms of this Bill shall be payable for land that has been acquired or resumed by the Land Commission as from the date of the introduction of the Bill.
Acquired, not resumed —but not from the date of the Bill but as the amendment sets out. If the Deputy reads the amendment he will see that it allows those whose land has been taken possession of on or after the 1st December last to have the price redetermined.
That is the point.
There is a good deal of pressure from all sides of the House to make the Bill retrospective to certain dates. There is only one honest way to make it retrospective—to take it right back to the passing of the 1923 Act. I think nobody wants to go back that far.
Could it be possible, under the Minister's amendment that the price of land might be reduced— that the new price might be a reduced price? There is nothing in this section or amendment——
Anything is possible but do not go raising improbable hares.
A tribunal is going to fix this new price of land acquired since the 1st December last. It is quite a possibility, under this legislation as it is here now——
Has the Deputy the amendment?
I have.
Read paragraph 3.
There is no provision to prevent the previous price being reduced.
Suppose there is not. I am sure we can trust to the wisdom of those seeking to have the price adjusted, that is, if they were paid an over price. You may be quite sure you will not hear of them asking to have the price overhauled.
We know what the law might do sometimes.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 is out of order. Paragraph (2) of the amendment reads: "The cost of the implementation..." That gives it away.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:—
To add a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Sub-section (1) of this section shall not apply to any case where the person from whom the land is being acquired is a non-national.
My main reason for moving this amendment is that I think it would be absolutely and entirely unfair to ask any Government which has to be so careful and cautious with the taxpayers' money, and to provide all the money essential to pay for the land being acquired, to pay market value to non-nationals, foreigners or any such individuals who have purchased land during the past number of years in this country. We have, as I have said, plenty of places to put the money of the taxpayers of this country by giving a good reasonable price to the Irishmen and the nationals from whom the Land Commission will be taking over land. However, I think that in fairness there should be nobody in this House who would for a moment say that it would be just or fair to give to a foreigner or to a non-national of any description the market value for his or her land, as the case may be, and to place such persons on the same footing as our own citizens.
Although I support Section 5 of this Bill I do so without any enthusiasm. The reason why I support it is because the Minister has more or less given us the assurance that it will speed up this question of land settlement. Personally I was quite satisfied with the machinery available up to this in the Land Commission for that particular type of work but I blame the people concerned in the Land Commission for not carrying out the work as quickly as they should have carried it out.
The Minister has said that this new power is necessary and that it is an incentive to give what he calls market value so that a pool of land will be available in a short time. It is bad enough to have to give market value at all, in the sense in which it is in Section 5, but to give it to foreigners or spivs who came into this country in recent years is, I think, asking too much of this House. I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment, which was moved by Deputy Commons, that these foreigners be debarred. There is no question about it but that in recent years there was an influx of people from Britain and elsewhere who did not like conditions as they were under the British Labour Government. They thought the best thing they could do was to come over here to this little island and invest their ill-gotten gains in Irish land. Are we, as the representatives of the Irish people, to pay them market value for something they had no right to in the very beginning?
I can readily appreciate Deputy Commons's viewpoint in this connection but I want to assure the House that to adopt this principle would have very serious repercussions in many ways. While it is pretty evident that none of us receives with open arms non-nationals who purchase land in this country—that is so, particularly, if it occurs in congested areas or even in the vicinity of congested areas—there are other factors to be considered. First, a number of our flesh and blood abroad have purchased property in other countries. It is an international principle, which has been embodied in Section 3 of the Aliens Act of 1935, that the property of non-nationals will get the same protection in law in this country as that of nationals and citizens of the State. The very same thing applies to our kith and kin in England, America and elsewhere.
That is one aspect of it which would have very serious repercussions. I do not know whether we might not look forward to retaliation if the amendment were adopted. As the amendment is worded, it also throws into that category our own people who went abroad in former years and acquired American citizenship. There are quite a few of them my own neighbours and I suppose such people are to be found in every county. They acquired American citizenship while abroad and have since come home to take up their parents' holdings in this country. They have never bothered, however, to set right the question of their citizenship. We have quite a number of these people to contend with. I would ask the Deputy not to press the amendment principally because of the repercussions it would have abroad. While saying that, I think it right to say also that I have a certain amount of sympathy with the motives which the Deputy had in moving this amendment.
I have a good deal of sympathy with Deputy Commons in relation to his proposal although I do think the acceptance of it as a principle would be bad. Nevertheless, every national Government here would need to be very careful to guard against a recrudescence of the system of feudalism such as existed in this country formerly. There is no comparison between the case of the people who have come here to Ireland in the flight from Moscow and that of our people who have to go to other countries to earn a livelihood. The Minister for Agriculture proposes to bring in a Fisheries Bill one of these days to deal with fisheries. There are many important Irish fishing rivers upon which, due to the purchase of farms by rich people from outside, an Irishman cannot cast a fly. That is relevant only because the land as well as the river is involved. While, as I say in my view the principle enunciated by Deputy Commons is dangerous, I think that any difficulties we can place in the way of certain types of people coming here from abroad, would be very welcome to the people of Ireland.
Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
Yes, Sir. I have listened to the Minister but I am not one of those who will swallow this talk about the repercussions the amendment would have on Irish people who have emigrated. I would be very slow in moving any such amendment were it not for the terrible necessity that exists to have these lands made available for our own people. We are faced on the one hand with a flight from this country, principally from the congested districts, and on the other hand with a flight into the country of wealthy people who can afford to buy land. There might be some excuse for asking me to withdraw the amendment if a limit were put on the number of acres or on the valuation of the land that these people are allowed to purchase. As it is, we know that for a number of years past and, up to the present moment, people from abroad can acquire land here without any restrictions.
Within two miles of my own door, within the last six months, we have had an instance of a wealthy foreigner coming in and depriving the people of that locality of an opportunity of partaking of the wealth that is supposed to be provided by our land. I think we should be very slow in paying compensation to these people for the land we acquire from them to allow them market value. They have no right to come into this country and deprive the native population of opportunities which rightly are theirs. Some time or other this thing will have to be stopped. We shall have to show Prince So-and-So or the Rt. Honourable So-and-So that when they come here to grab the land that rightly belongs to our own people, they will not be allowed the same compensation, if that land is acquired from them at a later stage, as we would give to nationals from whom land is taken. As I stated at the outset, I do not believe that this amendment is going to have any repercussions abroad but, whether it will or not, my immediate concern is the provision of land as cheaply as possible for people in the congested districts who have been waiting for it for a long time.
I do not quite understand the principle of this limiting amendment as it appears to me to be an amendment very limited in scope— whether designedly or not I cannot say. As I understand the amendment, it proposes to deal with the provisions of a previous amendment by the Minister. In other words, it deals with a very limited number of people, who will come in, in what I might call the interregnum period, people whose lands were in the course of acquisition at the end of last year or at the present time. This amendment does not appear to me to be framed to deal with the law as it will exist for all time in the future in reference to the compensation for land compulsorily acquired. It seems to me that the amendment is designed to deal merely with any individual whose lands are being acquired at the present time, before the Bill becomes law. I should like to know from the Minister whether there are in fact any such people or whether we are merely shadow-boxing. I do not know whether there are any people, non-nationals, whose lands are in course of acquisition at the present time. If there are not, this amendment need not occupy the time of the House because it is designed only to deal with people whose lands are in course of acquisition at the passing of the Act. If Deputy Commons intended this amendment to be written on the Statute Book as part of the law of this country for all time, dealing with the question of compensation for land in future, we could then debate the question of principle, as to whether we are entitled to expropriate people who are non-nationals and at the same time consider the repercussions of that on other people who are also non-nationals but who came to this country to assist in the establishment of industries, etc. If you are dealing with one section you will have to deal with another. The way that this amendment is drafted, it is quite clear to me that the amendment solely deals with these people who may be non-nationals and whose land may be in the course of acquisition at the present time.
That is not so.
Perhaps the Minister will make it clear, because, reading the amendment as I have it before me here, it states:
"Sub-section (1) of this section shall not apply to any case where the person from whom the land is being acquired is a non-national."
And sub-section (1) will deal with all acquired land from the 1st December last and for the future onwards.
I have Section 5 before me here and there is no sub-section (1) in it that I can see.
Strictly speaking, that is correct.
I do not want deliberately to confuse anyone, but I took it to refer to amendment No. 2 of the Minister, that Deputy Commons meant it to refer to amendment No. 2 of the Minister, this new section he proposes to introduce.
No, because Deputy Commons had not knowledge of my amendment at the time he tabled this.
Perhaps Deputy Commons would explain.
It was meant to refer to paragraph (a) of the first sub-section in Section 5. If we are going to split hairs on this amendment in that way, I am not at all surprised that the Land Commission is stuck where it is and never looks like leaving it. There is no doubt whatever about this amendment I have put down. It is as clear as crystal and is intended to be part of this legislation, that in the future as well as from the 1st December, 1949, any land which will be taken over, acquired or resumed, or whatever it is, from non-nationals, they shall not get the market value. Whatever else Deputy Moran sees in it, I cannot see it.
I see a reference to sub-section (1) in the Deputy's amendment and there is no sub-section (1) in this section of the Bill. If I am confused, I can say that three-quarters of the House is confused also.
What I understood it to mean was that Deputy Commons was referring to paragraph (a) and this is just a slip of the pen, if you like. He obviously means this amendment to cover all future purchases.
I take it that if it is proposed to add another sub-section, that becomes sub-section (2) and the existing one here, though not numbered, becomes Section 1.
I did not hear the case for this amendment. Personally, I would have a great deal of sympathy with any proposal that seeks to restrict the purchase of property here by aliens. That would apply not only to land, but to residential and business property also. I believe it is dangerous to allow too great a portion of the national assets to be passing into the hands of outsiders. I do not think, however, that this is the correct way to deal with this problem. A more effective way would be to prevent acquisition or to restrict acquisition by some special legislation. Merely to restrict powers for compensation would be a roundabout way of dealing with the problem. It might create a good deal of confusion for the Land Commission and perhaps it would cause delay in the acquisition of land. However, I did not hear the view of those speaking for the amendment.
This amendment by Deputy Commons aims to achieve a certain purpose. I have a certain amount of sympathy with what is at the back of it, but this is not the way to achieve the end he desires. Apart from repercussions it would have abroad on our own kith and kin who have purchased land and property, notably in the United States and in England, this country—and any country with an ounce of wisdom—always seeks to develop the most cordial relations with all its neighbours, just the same as wise individuals do. It is only a fool who tries to get his claws stuck in everybody, without cause. One of the principal objections I have is that this seeks to establish a principle here whereby the State may deprive a person, a human being, who is not a national, of his land at a lesser value than another. No country in the world has sought to do that, except one. It is a wrong principle and I would not be prepared to support it. Under it, the State would say: "We are going to grab your property for half its value" or some figure like that, while the rest of the people, because they are nationals, will be given the full market value. That would place the State at once in a position where they would have a right to confiscate property. Half price or two-thirds price could be reckoned as being full price for a certain portion of the people and that would mean confiscation of the rest of the value. I hope I will never see this Dáil establishing that principle.
There is quite an amount of talk about the fact that non-nationals are coming in here and buying certain farms and holdings. This amendment is not the way to deal with that question. I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that I am just as serious about this as Deputy Commons or anyone else, but this definitely is not the way to do it. If I might describe it without going too far, I would say that this amendment, in seeking to stop the abuse or evil, is very much on the level with the Chinaman who burned his house to cook his dinner.
Perhaps I have more knowledge of what the reaction to this would be than the Deputy has. For that reason. I assure him that other steps are being taken along the lines that the Deputy desires; but I assure him that this would be a most disastrous way to approach and attack this problem and that it would not achieve the desired end. First, in order to acquire land of non-nationals, the whole structure of protection which the 1939 Act gives to owners of land who are living on it and working on it would have to be radically altered. Again, Section 3 of the 1935 Aliens Act would have to be completely repealed. I know what is in his mind about this question. The repercussions would be serious, both inside and outside the country, and I would ask him not to press it. He will get my full sympathy and support in his efforts to achieve his object in some other way. May I say I am already fairly well advanced with certain inquiries and information along the lines in his mind? We have not been asleep to it.
Might I ask if the Minister has something in mind with regard to this point raised by the amendment—if he is prepared to take steps to see that the purchase of land in this country by foreigners is cut down to the lowest possible limit? May I take it that the Minister has investigated this and intends to bring proposals before the House in regard to it?
I know the object Deputy McQuillan has in mind. I have just as much sympathy with this problem as the Deputy or anyone else. I am sure Deputy Moylan knows some of the difficulties attached to it. It is not as easy as going in and saying that no one but an Irish national shall purchase land. There is a very serious question here. There is the question of repercussions abroad. There is the big principle that we are asking a Department of State to establish the principle of taking land at a reduced price from one person besides another. There must be a method. While I have nothing concrete to put forward at the moment, there must be some means found of curtailing that evil, because it is quite easy to foresee the danger in it. It is not very serious yet by any means and I do not think the House should appear to get alarmed about it. The Deputy can be assured that a watchful eye is being kept on the situation.
So far, we have had from both sides of the House an expression of sympathy with Deputy Commons' amendment. Deputies on the opposite side said they have sympathy with it. Deputies on this side have expressed the same feeling. In other words, they intend, if possible, to another this amendment in sympathy. The attitude of Fianna Fáil to this amendment has been that of caution. I suppose that is due to the fact that they were 16 years hibernating. The interest of Deputies, especially rural Deputies from the West of Ireland, in the relief of congestion has diminished according to the length of time they have spent in the House.
Would the Deputy deal with the amendment?
Count the lads behind you. You could carry the amendment.
There are some of them who have as much sympathy with the amendment as the Deputies opposite. I do not dispute that. The Minister has opened a very big problem when he says that we must have regard to the fact that our people have purchased land in America and Britain and that we must watch our position in connection with America and Britain. That is quite true but Britain and America have not the problem of land settlement that we have to face. That statement of the Minister's would be quite in order in ten years' time when the land problem had been settled fairly satisfactorily, in other words, when congestion had been relieved and the greatest possible number of economic holdings had been established. That is not the present position.
We have rural slums in which our young people find it impossible to make a living. They have to emigrate and, possibly, at a later stage, buy land in America. It is only right that we should safeguard their interests and see that they are provided with land at home in the first place. The cautious atmosphere that the Minister has created will not frighten me into opposing this amendment. I am concerned with congested areas in my own constituency and have seen the congestion that exists in other areas in the West of Ireland.
In getting away with the section in regard to market value, the Minister has achieved more than he ever hoped to achieve before he became a Minister. It is going a bit too far to suggest that that should apply to foreigners—"opportunists" is perhaps the word I should use to describe them —who have bought up land, especially in the last few years. Are the Irish people to pay an exorbitant price to buy out foreigners or non-nationals who bought land here because they saw a chance of making money? That is the principle I see in it. Are we going to ask the Irish people, who are badly in need of land, to pay an inflated price to foreigners for land they secured under false pretences?
Not an inflated price. That is an exaggeration. The Bill provides that market value will be paid. The Bill does not say "market price". As I have said, "non-nationals" includes our own Irish-born kith and kin who have gone to the States or to England and who have lost their Irish citizenship and have become American or British citizens. The amendment would preclude, for instance, Deputy McQuillan's brother, or my brother, if he were now an American citizen, from coming home and purchasing land here because, unless he takes out Irish citizenship, if the Land Commission decide to take up his land, he will not get the same fair play or the same price as his neighbour, who is an Irish citizen, will get. We know the principle behind the amendment. It has been hastily worded, without proper regard to many things. I could not possibly stand over acceptance of an amendment which asks the State to discriminate between people and to give market value to Irish nationals and to take a non-national's property from him even though he might be our own flesh and blood.
The Land Commission has ample power to acquire any farm because, while a non-national who buys a farm here has the protection of the State the same as a national, he must also conform to the laws laid down by this House. If the Land Commission have the right to acquire land from a national, they also have power to acquire the non-national's farm if it is useful for their purposes. They have done so and will do so in future, if the land suits them, if it comes within the scope of the Land Acts. This amendment is not the way in which to approach the problem that it is designed to solve.
I do not agree with the Minister. If the proposed differentiation in price has suddenly become so abhorrent to the Minister, the Land Commission and some Deputies, how is it that the same thing has been carried out for 25 or 30 years in regard to the acquisition and resumption of land? There has been a vast difference in price there for a long number of years.
So there was and there was nothing honest or straight about it.
This may not be such a horrible and criminal amendment. The Minister should know better than I do that the stamp duty charged by the Revenue Commissioners in regard to the purchase of property is much greater in the case of aliens than in the case of nationals. One Government Department seem to think that it is perfectly right to make the non-national pay more. Another Government Department seem to think that it is a horrible proposition that they cannot stand over.
The point has been made that the amendment would preclude our own kith and kin from purchasing land in this country on their return from abroad.
If they had lost their Irish citizenship.
Everybody who has an ounce of sense knows that the Irishman who had to emigrate to America and who returns and purchases 15, 40 or 50 acres of land and who lives on it and works it, is not regarded as a rancher by even the most congested small farmer.
I do not agree with that.
To compare those people with those who buy 300, 400 or 1,000 acres is most unjustified. There is no use in the Minister trying to convince me that this cannot be done because the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Finance are doing it at the moment and have passed legislation to do it. This amendment aims at doing the same thing.
There was a bad example set in this House some years ago when the Constitution, which is declared to be binding upon us, was violated twice in rapid succession by the steam roller majority of the then Government. Fortunately, the courts intervened to check them. I want the House to pause a moment and to show that respect for the fundamental law of the country to which it is entitled. It would be a pity if Oireachtas Eireann acquired the habit of attempting to drive a coach and four through our own Constitution. We need not fear that they will succeed, because the courts are there to check them, if they try, but that should not reduce our vigilance to avoid the undesirable appearance of indifference to the Constitution.
I think, and I do not set up to be a constitutional lawyer, that the Constitution provides, in the section relating to property, that all persons under the protection of our institutions shall be treated equally before the law. Our Constitution provides that all persons under the protection of our institutions shall have a guarantee that in regard to his fundamental rights there will not be one law for Billy and another law for Jack. There is no more fundamental right, according to the way in which the majority of us in Ireland look at things, than the right to own private property. The right to acquire property is quite another thing.
The Minister should address the Chair.
The right to acquire property is quite another thing. You may lay down, I think, legitimately, that a national shall have facilities and freedom to create rights in himself in respect of property in his own country which you are slow to give to a stranger. You may lay down, I think, legitimately, that you want guarantees and even greater value from an alien if he wants to acquire property, because, when he has acquired property in Ireland, he has thereby vested himself in the privileges conferred on all persons by our Constitution, which says that, in respect of their fundamental rights, they shall be equal before the law.
Any man who owns property in this country has, to the way of thinking of the vast majority of our people, a fundamental right and let not Oireachtas Eireann forget that over a wide part of the earth's surface there are people trying to establish the doctrine that there is no such right as the right to own private property. I think the Minister for Lands has wisely said in a matter of this kind: "Let every man in the House do as he pleases." That is the ideal arrangement in any deliberative assembly. Does the Opposition doubt that?
He did not say it.
He has not said that.
I hope he does say it. I hope he throws this wide open.
I have said it a thousand times.
I will ask him to say it now because I want Deputies, as individual citizens of this free country, so to deport themselves in this division as to show their respect or disrespect for the fundamental law of Ireland. If a Constitution is to function, the arguments as to its merits have come to an end and a decision is taken. Whatever the arguments may have been before the decision is taken, one citizen should vie with another in his desire to show respect for the established institutions of the community to which he belongs. If I never cared for a section of the Constitution, I would feel ashamed to have walked into the Lobby for a piece of legislation which violated the Constitution, because I think I would have shown myself unfit for the privileges and duties of a man who enjoys his freedom by virtue of a fundamental law.
Would the Minister deal with the amendment?
The amendment is designed to set up one basis of compensation for Billy and another for Jack. The fundamental law of this country says that, whether a man is rich or poor, great or humble, native or stranger, when he is under the protection of our law, whatever may be his fate in his own country, he will be treated under Irish law in accordance with the tenets of justice and equity. Where is the justice and equity of taking a stranger's property and denying him its value if you take identical property from his neighbour who is a citizen of this State and give him its full value? Millions of our people have in their time been strangers in a strange land and they have had abundant cause to thank God that the land they went to had a Constitution and that however humble they were, however insignificant, if anyone in the United States of America dared to treat them differently before the law from the most venerable family in America there were judges there to see, whatever injustice prevailed under British dispensations in Ireland whence such a man came, now that he was in America he was entitled to precisely the same treatment under the law as the President of the United States. I hope to God that a people who have thanked God for that haven of refuge and freedom in their day will not so far disgrace themselves in respect of this matter as to say: "Having thanked God for that freedom, that justice and that equity when we were down-trodden and poor, we will deny it to strangers who come to live in our midst." Whether they are rich or poor, great or humble, before the law of Ireland they are all the same.
I must say that I was somewhat amused at the Minister for Agriculture here to-night castigating members who are supporting the Coalition Government for proposing this amendment. After all, the Minister for Agriculture should know, and does know, that he sits on the Government Front Bench, because of the campaign of which this is a tailpiece. The Minister for Lands had the impudence to say to-night that this question of foreigners buying land here was a small matter, that there was really nothing to it, when he and all the Deputies on the Coalition Benches ranted around the country that the country was being bought out by the British.
I think the Deputy is rambling.
They said there were swarms of them coming here. Deputy Commons does not think it a small matter and he and the Minister for Lands were partners, not very happy partners, I understand, but partners, in the canvass for votes for the Clann na Talmhan Party in Mayo. They ranted around the country that there was a new invasion and that the spivs were coming over. To-night the principal spokesman for the Coalition says that there was nothing to that campaign, that they were lying.
I think the Deputy is rambling. God knows I do not know what he is talking about.
Let the Minister for Agriculture keep silence. Nobody interrupted him when he was speaking.
It is not easy to keep silence when the untruths are flying about.
Does the Minister for Lands deny that one of the principal planks in the Coalition platform was that Fianna Fáil should be put out because they were allowing the land of Ireland to be bought by spivs by the million?
On a point of order, we are discussing amendment No. 4 and I submit that the Deputy's remarks are completely irrelevant.
The amendment deals with non-nationals.
But not with what was said or was not said two, three or four years ago.
The Minister for Lands, conscious of his past, indicated that he was just as agitated as Deputy Commons or Deputy McQuillan about this matter and he promised, behind the backs of the rest of the members of the Government, behind the back of the Minister for Agriculture, that he really was going to deal with this problem. I do not know whether the Minister for Agriculture had anything to explain to the House or to Deputies Commons and McQuillan as to what the Government intends to do to stop land being bought up by foreigners.
That is wide of the amendment.
One of the reasons of the Minister for Lands why the amendment should be withdrawn was that the Government had an alternative and that it was going to see the light of day before very long.
I said no such thing. The Deputy can proceed now and I will deal with him when he is finished.
He said that there must be a method of dealing with it and that that method was going to come into operation. Deputy Commons can bear that out.
On a point of order. Deputy Aiken appears, I respectfully submit, to be addressing himself to the question of the acquisition of land by non-nationals. This amendment deals with the compulsory acquisition of land by the State from non-nationals. There is a fundamental distinction and I submit that his observations are not relevant.
He has addressed himself to statements which were made by the Minister for Lands.
The Minister has submitted that Deputy Aiken's remarks are not relevant. I agree with the Minister for Agriculture. This does not deal with the purchase of land by foreigners but from them.
What did the Minister say about America?
I am not here to answer about America.
Deputy Commons stated——
I have stated that Deputy Aiken was out of order; that is a ruling. There is one way to question that, that is, to impeach the Chair if Deputy Moran so desires.
As I said at the beginning, it amuses me somewhat to see the Leaders of the Front Government Bench reaping the whirlwind they have sown. There would be no question of acquiring the land which Deputy Commons says is being acquired within two miles of his own door within the last six months by foreigners if the Minister for Lands had lived up to the promises he gave around the country.
Would the Deputy deal with the amendment and the substance of it?
If Deputy Commons's amendment were accepted by the House—and I do not think it should be—it would certainly deal in the way he wants with these foreigners who bought land two miles from his own door within the past six months. The Minister for Agriculture dealt, at some length, with the provisions made by the Fianna Fáil Government to stop or discourage the acquisition of land by foreigners.
I never referred to it. I said that you twice legislated.
Oh yes, the Minister for Agriculture said that it would be quite all right to discourage or prevent foreigners from competing with our people for land as has been done. We know that it was done in the 1946 Finance Act. Of course the principal opponent of the 25 per cent. tax on foreigners was the Minister for Agriculture.
I submit that a debate on what was done at the election has nothing whatever to do with one small amendment which has one specific purpose, namely, whether the market price will be paid to a non-national when land is taken from him.
I am dealing with the amendment as best I can, an amendment which the Minister for Agriculture said was disrespectful to our fundamental law, our Constitution. The Minister had not very much respect for that fundamental law on many occasions.
These are asides which are quite irrelevant and which might lead to a big debate.
Can I follow the Minister for Agriculture on the Irish nationals who bought land in America? Can I follow the Minister for Lands to America and back again and his brother and Deputy Commons's brother? I am dealing here with land which Deputy Commons says was bought by a foreigner within the last six months two miles from him own door.
The amendment deals with one specific point.
The amendment would deny that particular foreigner the right to whatever new price is being fixed.
The sole purpose of the amendment is to say whether or not he should be so deprived.
Am I to say just "yes" or "no" to that?
I am not to dictate the Deputy's speech. I am to say when he is out of order.
If you say I am out of order, I will immediately bow to your ruling. I want to argue the case made by the Minister for Agriculture who came in here looking for fight, and also to try and make peace if I can between Deputy Commons, Deputy McQuillan and the Minister for Lands for whom they have responsibility. They put him into office.
Do not worry about me.
I believe that in this amendment Deputy Commons, supported by Deputy McQuillan, does not really mean to hurt the Minister for Lands. If they had horns it would not be hard to hurt him, but they do not mean to use any horns. Deputy Commons is putting himself into the position in which he can go down to Mayo and say: "Oh, I objected to this man getting the benefits of this Land Act, but I will take jolly good care to keep the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Agriculture in their positions."
Hear! hear!
That is the whole point. I would rather be out for the rest of my life than to be in a Government and be kept on the Government Front Bench by people who completely disagreed with my policy, or be like the Deputy who had to go down to O'Connell Street the other day and say that he voted against his conscience when he voted for the abolition of the bus depôt in Store Street.
To come back to the amendment, the Minister for Agriculture concludes that every man in this House should do as he pleases on it. He is not prepared either to make this an issue. He says it is a breach of the fundamental law of the land. He is quite prepared to let his supporters take a crack at the fundamental law of the land in this regard. Indeed, there are a lot of other friends of certain members of the Government who are allowed to take a crack at the fundamental law and of the forces of law and order.
That is a dangerous doctrine.
He is prepared to let Deputy Commons do as he pleased in regard to this amendment provided he keeps the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Lands warm in their seats as members of the Government. If Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Commons had been really in earnest in this regard they could have secured that their amendment was put into the Land Bill before it appeared in this House. They are only coming in here now to kick up a little bit of a row so that Deputy Commons can go down and quote that in Mayo. But he does not really mean to go through with the amendment. He will not make an issue of it. Will the Minister for Lands explain to the House what is his alternative to the amendment of Deputy Commons and Deputy McQuillan? What is he going to introduce, and what schemes have the Government in hand, which he promised would see the light of day before long, for dealing with the problem which was referred to by Deputy Commons? Will the Minister answer that question?
Have you concluded?
I have not. This is Committee.
I was fearing one thing, and that was this Land Bill, which aims at bringing relief to a vast number of people all over the country, was going to meet with the same black-guardly obstruction that the Local Authorities (Works) Bill met with here last summer.
That is one for Deputy Commons.
It is not, but it is for the Deputies on the Opposition side of the House who have been talking so much that they have had to be pulled up by the Chair for irrelevancy. I want to see Deputy Commons, Deputy Moran and every other Deputy exercise their privileges as Deputies with freedom to put down amendments to try and improve any Bill which comes before the House, especially a Bill which aims at bringing relief to a great number of people throughout the country. What I would not like to see happen in the House is that Deputies should abuse their privileges and so bring untold suffering on their constituents in the country by downright blackguardism. Deputy Moran remembers that he spoke for hours and days on the other side of the House.
Mr. de Valera
Is the word "black-guardism" a parliamentary expression?
It is not.
It is in the dictionary.
It would be a sorry day if every word in the dictionary was parliamentary.
I quite agree. I am sorry, and I withdraw the expression. This Government has brought in several measures, including this Land Bill, to try and benefit the people who are our own flesh and blood. The people up and down the country are suffering and labouring under many grievances. I do not mind active opposition or active criticism of any measure provided the criticism is not designed solely and specifically to obstruct the passage of a Bill through sheer downright fear that the Government will reap kudos of the good things in the Bill.
That is exactly what is being carried out here. I cannot prevent any man abusing his privileges in the House by delaying a measure of this kind. The only weapon that is left to me is to go outside this House and tell the people the work that is going on here. The electors will deal with those people in due time when they have to go before them.
The Opposition cannot understand why Deputy Commons or any member of a Party supporting the Government should put down an amendment to this Bill. Deputy Commons and every Deputy supporting the Government has a perfect right to put down amendments and will not be influenced or tampered with to keep awkward amendments off the Order Paper. I am proud of Deputy Commons for putting down such an amendment. I never spoke to him about or interfered with him in regard to this amendment. I never tried to have it withdrawn. I hope that any Party who has that method of legislating will never sit down on this side of the House again. Deputy Commons suffers from this disability from the Fianna Fáil point of view, that he is not a "yes-man." I think ten times more about him for that. He has as much right to put his views on the amendment before the House as I have to tell him and the House exactly why that amendment would be injurious if passed into law. That is one of the freedoms which we on this side of the House have got from the people and we mean to do our best to hold it for the people.
Deputy Aiken has strayed into a different field altogether. He misquoted me as saying that the purchase of land by foreigners was only a trifling thing. What I said was that a very close eye was being kept on that particular matter. If it is as trifling as Deputy Aiken said I stated it was, he need not worry about it. I know the game Deputy Aiken is trying to play. I know exactly the repercussions this amendment will have if passed into law. If Deputy Commons's amendment is put, Deputy Aiken will have to come out into the open and say whether he supports the amendment or not and we will see which Lobby he shall go into. I do not believe in a machined or dragooned majority in this House.
If the Minister goes on these general lines, he may get replies which will delay the Bill considerably.
Very good. So far as I am concerned, I intend to allow any Deputy to vote as he wishes on this amendment and I know that we can always rely on the majority of the House deciding on this or any other amendment in the right way and in the best interests of the country. Perhaps Deputy Aiken has something to say.
I did not intend to speak until I heard Deputy Aiken's remarks. I should like to find out what he means exactly when he says that Deputy Commons, if he were really sincere about the amendment, would have gone to the Minister and had it inserted in the Bill. As a new Deputy, I understood that when legislation came before the House it was my right as a Deputy, as I think it is the right of Deputy Commons or any other Deputy, to put down an amendment in order to improve it according to my rights if I feel myself capable of improving it. Deputy Aiken suggested by his remarks that no such right exists for a private Deputy and it is quite plain that there was no such right for any member of the Fianna Fáil Party for 16 years.
Deputy Aiken said that Deputy Commons and myself were concerned with this amendment purely for the purpose of making political capital down the country. That is untrue. I think it is the right of every Deputy to introduce an amendment to any Bill if he feels that way inclined. I merely remark that the habit was not practised by the Fianna Fáil Party for a number of years because, like well-trained lap dogs, at the crack of the Party whip they did what they were told. So long as I am on this side of the House, if I feel like opposing any Bill I shall do so and I will not be deterred by Fianna Fáil.
You never did it yet.
It is evident that some Deputies from my own constituency and from the west of Ireland are now in favour of the new plantation. I shall be glad to see them going into the same lobby as myself and Deputy Commons.
They fought against plantation when you were far from it.
You changed your coat too many times.
The Deputy must address the Chair.
Deputy O'Rourke drew me. If he wants it, he will get plenty of it.
These are black-guardly remarks.
A few moments ago the point was raised that the word "blackguardly" was unparliamentary and the Minister withdrew it. It has been repeated now from the other side of the House.
I withdraw it.
It comes well from a man as high as he was in the Gaelic Athletic Association to call that out across the House. If he thinks he will get away with that type of remark inside or outside the House, he is mistaken. He got away with it long enough.
What remark are you talking about?
It is evident that we have on both sides of the House advocates of a new plantation.
Where did they say that?
Legislation was introduced in this House whereby foreigners had to pay increased duties if they bought property in this country. That was done under the Fianna Fáil Administration.
The Deputy must deal with the amendment before the House.
I relate it to the amendment in this way. I maintain that this amendment is necessary owing to the fact that there has been a tremendous influx of foreigners from abroad. Deputies on the far side said that that is incorrect.
Deputy Aiken was prevented from pursuing that line and told to get down to this amendment and what is in it and the Deputy will have to do likewise.
I will not pursue that line. I will come to the remarks of the Minister for Agriculture. As I said, I will not be prevented from saying what I like in this House by Fianna Fáil or anybody on this side of the House. I bow to the ruling of the Chair, however. The remark was made by the Minister for Agriculture in connection with the American Constitution that people over there had their rights in connection with property and land. Nobody denies that. But such a statement from the Minister for Agriculture would give the impression that we had vast prairies in Ireland like they have in America and that all that people had to do was to come to Ireland; that there were the plains of Kildare, Meath and Westmeath and, if a foreigner felt like purchasing land, all he had to do was to buy it and he would get the same privileges as the people in Ireland who for generations have been looking for a decent holding. Evidently the Minister for Agriculture is making a comparison between this country and America as if we both had the same amount of land available for the relief of congestion.
This particular section, if it is passed, will prevent or, if you like, save the Irish people from paying to foreigners an increased price for land that they have no right to get. Again, at the risk of repetition, I want to say that so far as I am concerned I do not see any earthly reason why people who came over here from England and who made fortunes there during the war by various means should, under this Bill, get away with something they are not entitled to. That is the reason I am going to support this amendment.
I regret that a certain disability has kept me from being as often in the House as I should be, because it is certainly very entertaining to come here now and again. I was very much impressed by the dramatic entry of Deputy Dillon, the Minister for Agriculture. I thought there should be a dipping of flags and a blaring of trumpets when he came in. He seemed to have been pricked behind the arras by his colleagues' attitude towards this particular amendment. Having been lectured on morality and ethics by the Minister—needlessly, I think—we could go back to the particular matter before the House.
Constitutional law only, Deputy.
The American Constitution has hardly any bearing on the section before the House. I said, and I want to repeat it, that we are opposed to the principle embodied in this amendment. The Minister said that while he agreed that the end sought by Deputy Commons in the amendment was a desirable one, this was not the method by which it should be pursued, and he indicated that he was pursuing that end by a more effective method. He said he had given the matter a good deal of consideration.
I want to emphasise that we are, and must be, opposed to the principle embodied in the amendment. It cannot be otherwise. But the fact that it is moved does show that there is a certain difficulty and a certain resentment that the Government must take cognisance of. Not merely in Ireland but down through the history of England there have been revolutionary tactics directed against the influx of foreigners into England, and with very grave results—for the foreigners. It is a natural and a human thing that there should be resentment by people like Deputy Commons towards foreigners who purchase land in his district, but we must agree that anybody coming to live in Ireland, purchasing or owning property in Ireland, is equal with all others before the law. We cannot get past that principle.
I mentioned a while ago, and I mention it again because the Minister for Agriculture is here, that the Minister for Agriculture knows what tremendous value there is in inland fisheries. They can be developed to an amazing extent, I believe. But, if they are to be developed successfully, the Irish people must get their due and adequate share of the profits.
Hear, hear!
You cannot deal with the development of inland fisheries from the point of view—I know I am at the moment quite irrelevant, but I will be relevant—of preparing the rivers or the lakes for the tourists.
Or the foreign proprietor.
If Pat Murphy is not able to use his angling rod on the river or the lake, then there can be no development. As regards the purchase of land in Ireland by foreigners, I know one magnificent fishing river on which, from one end to the other, an Irishman cannot cast a fly.
There are many of those.
I know, and that is a difficulty we must meet. There is resentment. You may not accept this particular proposal, but you must keep in mind the resentment and the evil that will arise and the fact that we may have again, as a result of these evils, democracy represented by a man in a silk hat in Parliament and a man down the country behind a ditch with a gun.
I think, with the Minister for Agriculture, that it matters little whether this amendment is passed or rejected, because I agree that, should the matter ever be examined by the courts set up under the Constitution, they would hold such a legislative provision as contrary to the Constitution of this country, and therefore void. Apart from that, I would remind Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Commons of this fact, that, taking their own constituencies, there are, unfortunately—and I am certain of this— many kinsmen, constituents of theirs, living, working and carrying on business in a country not so far away from this country——
And owning property.
—— and owning property—houses and land—in England, and are we, even by a futile act of this Parliament, going to establish a principle which may in times like these be quite easily used in England against our own citizens, our own people abroad? I think it is a matter of considerable importance and considerable significance and that it should not be lightly proposed here. I think that the provision would be unconstitutional, contrary to the recognised guarantees given under our Constitution. Even if it were not, even if this Parliament were in the position of the British Parliament, entitled to pass any law it wished, it would be an unwise thing to do by reason of the consequences it might entail for our people abroad. I suggest to those Deputies that the matter mentioned by Deputy Moylan is one which must be the concern of the Government, not merely with regard to land but with regard to other matters, and it could be safely left at that.
The difference between the provisions in this amendment and the law as it stands is the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee. It is suggested by the Minister that we are going to get a better price for land under this Bill. I hope so. I listened to the Minister to-night when he was talking about differentiating between market value and market price, and the method of discovering the price to be paid by the Land Commission at the moment purports to be a method of arriving at the market value. I move to report progress.
Progress reported, the Committee to sit again.