I move that leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Aliens Act, 1935.
Aliens Bill, 1961—First Stage.
The motion is opposed.
Does that mean that, as far as Private Members' time is concerned, the Government propose to make Private Members' time available before the dissolution of this Dáil?
As of now, I am merely opposing the First Reading of the Bill. The question of making time available for Private Deputies' business during the course of the session can be considered some other time.
I take it, when the Taoiseach is opposing this stage of the Bill, that opposition applies both in Private Members' time as well as now?
Oh, yes.
In view of that would the Taoiseach not be prepared to take the usual line of action and give a decision on the Bill today rather than put it into Private Members' Time when the same decision will be given? We know that Private Members' time cannot possibly be made available for this Bill during this session and I would prefer if the Taoiseach would do now what he did in relation to a recent Private Members' Bill in February last, namely, take a decision one way or the other at this stage.
It is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle.
The usual procedure, when a Private Bill is opposed, is to refer the matter to Private Members' time. That is being done in this case.
I agree, but I should like to quote for you, Sir, your own words here on 9th February this year when a Private Members' Bill, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, 1961, was introduced. You pointed out that the usual procedure under Standing Orders is that, if a Private Members' Bill is opposed on First Reading, the debate is automatically adjourned until the next day on which Private Members' time is taken. You went on to say, and this is what I am interested in: "However, perhaps the Government wish to dispose of it today." The debate continued:
The Taoiseach: Would Deputy Dillon prefer to take it today?
Mr. Dillon: I would.
An Ceann Comhairle: Very well.
That was a matter for the Government.
But you, Sir, did not query the line of action the Government are taking today. All I ask is that the same facilities be granted to me as were extended on that occasion to Deputy Dillon.
Surely I have no control over the Government?
Is the Taoiseach prepared to have a decision on the Bill today? Is he prepared to adopt the same line as was taken on the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill in February?
If the Deputy wants his Bill to get a short knock like that, I would be prepared to facilitate him, but I should have thought he would prefer to have another go at it.
The Taoiseach knows perfectly well there will be no opportunity for another go. I prefer to have my opportunity of making a statement here today and having a decision. A decision would be relevant to the circulation of the Bill.
The Deputy appreciates the subject matter of the Bill will be under discussion in another connection. Perhaps he may, knowing the outcome of that discussion, prefer then not to proceed with his Bill.
I am innocent in many ways but that is one way in which I am not innocent. I have a certain limited knowledge of procedure in this House. All I am asking the Taoiseach is if he is prepared to make a statement here today as to why he is opposing the First Reading and allow me a similar opportunity of giving my view. I remember in 1952 when a Private Members' Bill was introduced by the Labour Party. It was postponed until Private Members' time was available and Private Members' time was available within a fortnight. There is a certain established practice in this House. In present circumstances Private Members' time will not be available in the lifetime of this Dáil and therefore the matter cannot come up again. I ask the Taoiseach now will he agree to have a final decision here today on this Bill?
If the Deputy wants a quick death for his Bill he can have it.
Now?
Obviously he wants to have a grievance. That is the real reason.
May I make a short statement?
Very well, since the Bill is now being taken in Government time.
First, I should like to say the Government have shown a complete lack of courtesy towards those whom I can only describe as the weaker members in this House, those who are not members of any major Party. This is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government——
Is this a statement on the Bill?
Is the Deputy making a statement on the Bill?
No, on the reason why the Bill is necessary.
The Deputy may not give reasons. He may only make a statement on the general purpose of the Bill.
What is in the Bill will not be allowed to see the light of day, I understand, because the Government have said they will not allow a First Reading. In the Bill there is provision to amend Section 3 of the Aliens Act 1935. That section states that a non-national has the same right to acquire, hold and dispose of real estate and property of every description in like manner as a national is entitled to hold, dispose of and acquire similar property and rights. As a result of the situation which has arisen in the last 15 years, a situation in which a vast quantity of agricultural land has passed into the hands of non-nationals, I think it is time to put a curb to the purchase of land suitable for the relief of congestion and the setting up of economic holdings. I hold that land should be reserved for the Irish people.
The amendment offered to the 1935 Act states simply that land suitable for the relief of congestion and for agricultural purposes will not be allowed to be purchased by non-nationals unless they can give satisfactory evidence of residence in this country for a period of 10 years. There is no attempt whatever in the Bill to prevent the purchase or acquisition of house property, of land for industrial development purposes, building sites, or anything like that. This is an attempt on our part to do what the Minister for Lands suggests is absolutely necessary, namely, make a pool of land available in order to bring up to an economic standard the 80,000 smallholders and congests in this country at the moment.
The Deputy is developing a Second Reading speech.
I have no intention of doing so.
The Deputy may merely make a brief statement at this stage on what is the general purpose of the Bill that he wishes to have printed.
He has told us what is in the Bill, Sir.
The aim of the Bill is to ensure that the amount of agricultural land suitable for the relief of congestion will be preserved for the State rather than permitted to pass into the hands of non-nationals. The Government have decided in their wisdom not to allow this Bill to see the light of day. I appreciate that there is another Bill which has had its First Reading——
I must rule that the Deputy has made the brief statement permissible on the First Stage of the Bill.
There is not the slightest doubt that this Government does not give a hang if all the agricultural land in Ireland passes into the hands of non-nationals. Their view is: "To hell with the congests and the small farmers".
Very briefly, I want to give the House some of the reasons why this Bill should be rejected forthwith without a Second Reading. The Bill is a foolish measure for many reasons: (1) it conflicts with the principle of reasonable reciprocity; (2) it imposes a limitation on free sale; (3) it would have a bad effect abroad on efforts to attract foreign capital into the industrial sector here; (4) it would provoke retaliation against our people in other countries; (5) it would be an impediment to Irish people returning here because if it were passed, it would prohibit Irish-Americans and others coming back; and (6) it would have a disastrous effect on our relations with friendly States.
We are living in an era in which the barriers between peoples are being removed and this is especially the case in Europe since the advent of the Common Market and if this Bill were passed, it would present us with the extraordinary situation that any member of the British Commonwealth could come in here—a man from South Africa could come in—but a Frenchman would be prohibited from doing so.
The seventh reason is that it is in direct conflict with the Industrial Development (Encouragement of External Investment) Act, 1958, the effect of which was to minimise the statutory restrictions which have hitherto been in force in relation to external participation in industrial activities in this country. Even if the Bill is designed to meet the purposes the Deputy has stated, it is foolish also in this way: it misses completely pre-1947 companies which were used as the main instrument in providing for some unfair acquisition of Irish land.
This Bill is based on a motion introduced in this House in 1954. At that time the principles of this Bill were rejected by all Parties in this House, except the Deputy and his then colleague. I accordingly ask the House to give this Bill the same treatment as the motion identical with it was given when it was rejected out of hand by the House and when the Deputy did not even see his way to challenge a division.
I should like to say ——
I am permitting only one statement for and one against the Bill.
——I have not even seen the Bill and I want to say that not having seen it, I am asked to vote that it be rejected. The Bill should at least have been printed.
Could I ask you, Sir, to clarify our minds as to what exactly is the issue? Do I correctly interpret the position as meaning that the net issue to be joined now is whether a Private Deputy is entitled to have this Bill printed and circulated to Dáil Éireann? If that is the net issue, I think he ought be allowed to have that right. It is impossible to judge the merits of a Bill until one has had an opportunity of reading it. But on the net issue as to whether a Private Member is entitled to have a Bill printed, I think the Government are wrong not to allow it.
Deputy Dillon is a bigger humbug than I thought he was.
No, I have stated this case repeatedly and I re-affirm it. The printing of the Bill should be permitted.
The question I am putting is: "That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Aliens Act, 1935."
Which was explained by the mover.
We have not seen it.
I have not seen it.
What about the people who were not in the House? Usually most of the Deputies are not in the House and when the bell rings they come in.
That question does not arise.
The Minister for Lands gave no reason why it should not be printed.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 34; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Jack.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Byrne, Tom.
- Casey, Seán.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Hogan, Bridget.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Russell, George E.
- Sherwin, Frank.
- Spring, Dan.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Tully, John.
Níl.
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Dan.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Donegan, Batt.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Galvin, John.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Johnston, Henry M.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Toole, James.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Teehan, Patrick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies McQuillan and Dr. Browne; Níl, Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.
Question declared lost.