First, I want to bring to the attention of the House some provisions of our law that this Parliament in its wisdom saw fit to pass. That is not to say, of course, that further steps might not be taken should a position arise here in respect of which it is felt that further steps are called for in addition to the steps that have already been taken, which are substantial penalties on outsiders acquiring land here.
However, in the context that positive steps have been taken by the Government in recent times to discourage the purchase by non-nationals of land required for the relief of congestion, it might be as well to point out, also, that in the case of property to which the Land Acts apply the sale of land to a new owner in no way impairs the powers of the Land Commission to acquire such land for the relief of congestion should such course prove desirable and the new Land Bill which has been circulated to Deputies will, if passed by the House, give certain new powers to enable the Land Commission to deal far more expeditiously with cases that Deputy Tully referred to and cases that other Deputies may have in mind.
But, with a view to expanding land acquisition generally, substantially increased funds have been made available by way of both cash and land bonds to bring into the congestion machine a considerably larger amount of land than was formerly the case, even by purchasing lands that come on the market by way of public auction. The present position, therefore, is that, with certain exceptions, all rural properties purchased or leased by non-nationals are liable to this 25 per cent stamp duty. The exceptions not subject to that duty are lands purchased for the purpose of industries other than agriculture or transactions specially exempted from the 25 per cent stamp duty under a recommendation of two Lay Commissioners of the Land Commission.
Turning to the motion itself, I should like to inform the House once more that prior to August, 1961, the extent of land purchased in this country by non-nationals was investigated upon two different occasions. An investigation carried out in 1950 indicated that during the previous decade, a total of 50,000 acres had been purchased by 200 persons who were believed to be non-nationals; in fact, a number of them turned out to be of Irish origin and, also, many of the properties were of a residential type unsuitable for land division.
Let me say, in passing, to the mover of this motion that I never claimed that all the land purchased by foreigners in this country was bad land. What I pointed out when dealing with this matter in my Estimate speech was that there were in a number of these cases what I described as white elephants, that is, places that would be unsuitable from the Land Commission point of view for relief of congestion or places with very large residences and possibly some indifferent land. With all respect to the good land of Meath which had been purchased, I also pointed out an instance, that no doubt is included in some of these figures, of 5,500 acres of snipe grass in the west of Ireland that was valued at 2d an acre, having been purchased by aliens during the past year. I gave that figure to illustrate to the House the fallacy of taking a total figure of lands over a period purchased by aliens or non-nationals and suggesting that by splitting that into 50 acres, so many holdings could be provided for the relief of congestion.
I merely pointed out that there is good and bad in this whole picture and I never claimed, as seems to be suggested by some, that all the land purchased by these people is bad land. Of course, some of it is quite good land and in the county from which the Deputy comes and in the midlands generally, some of it is land that possibly the Land Commission have no power to touch at all, such as stud farms which are excluded from the provisions of the Land Acts, with which exclusion I think the House as a whole would be very slow to quarrel, in view of the implications in respect of employment in the bloodstock industry and so on, that would be involved in that question.
In July, 1959, a second investigation was carried out by the Garda Síochána, with the co-operation of the Department of Justice, at the instance of my Department, into the extent of sizeable acquisitions of agricultural properties by non-nationals, and that investigation covered the period from April, 1957, to July, 1959. In summary, the returns showed that in that period of 2¼ years, a total of 23 sizeable properties, of approximately 7,030 acres, had been purchased by non-nationals.The vendors of three of these properties of 891 acres were themselves non-nationals. In that same period, 12 sizeable properties owned by non-nationals containing some 2,327 acres were sold back to Irish nationals. The net sales to non-nationals covered by the inquiry therefore comprised 11 sizeable properties containing 4,700 acres in the period from April, 1957, to July, 1959, averaging roughly 2,100 acres a year compared with an average of 5,000 acres a year from 1940 to 1950.
Let me say straight away that this was just a rough and ready check carried out by Land Commission officials, with the assistance of the Garda Síochána. I cannot say there is mathematical accuracy here. We asked them to look for any substantial holdings they knew of in their local areas that were sold to non-nationals, so these figures, which were compiled prior to the statutory register being established, can be given to the House only for what they are worth. I think they are reasonably accurate for the purpose of our discussion here.
From 1st August, 1961, up to this week, the total area recorded in the register kept by the Land Commission as having been purchased or leased to non-nationals and on which the 25 per cent rate of stamp duty has been paid, was 14,434 acres, comprising 176 transactions.Having regard to the investigation of 1959, which covers the two-and-a-quarter year period from April, 1957, to July, 1959, and to the existence of a register containing details of all transactions since 1st August, 1961, I am satisfied that we now have sufficient information to enable us to appraise the situation fully and that the steps already taken to discourage transactions involving the purchase of agricultural land by non-nationals are taking good effect as is apparent from the recent figures.
The present register, as I have said, was created under the Finance Act of 1961 and under it, every square foot of land that is being sold for this purpose is recorded. Let me say also to Deputy Tully that any question of slowness on the part of the Land Commission cannot affect this issue. It is the Revenue Commissioners who compile these figures from the purchase deeds being lodged with them for stamping and they automatically send to us these particulars to be entered in this statutory register. Let me say also to Deputy Tully and to the House that in order to ensure the accuracy of this register in so far as we can reasonably check, my officials do make spot checks throughout the country so that when the figures come from the Revenue Commissioners, we have an idea if something is going wrong or if there is some evasion as has been alleged by some Deputies.
Let me say that although this is strictly a matter for the Guards, because it is a criminal offence, we would be very glad to get particulars or to get information from any Deputy who thinks the law is being evaded in any constituency. Under the 1961 Act, very severe penalties, not alone monetary penalties but very severe terms of imprisonment are prescribed for anybody who tries to get around this 25 per cent law, let him be dealing with company shares or anything else in order to avoid it. As Deputies well know, it is a fraud if, say, the price of land is £10,000 and there is only £5,000 put in the deed and an allegation that there is £5,000 paid for non-existent stock. That is plain, common or garden fraud and is punishable as such, just as fraud is punishable in any other walk of life. If such instances occur, the law is there to deal with them.
I can also say that the Revenue Commissioners, if they consider the area or valuation of the lands comprised in the deed of conveyance or transfer lodged before them is unrealistic, have a duty, and the power, to send a requisition to the solicitor acting for the parties concerned to get more information. Indeed, they have the specific power to refuse the benefit or to refuse to let these people out of the stamp duty, even though, on the face of the transaction, they go into the High Court and get a declaration that the transaction is genuine. In any case in which the Revenue Commissioners are doubtful, they are entitled to do that.
I want to point out these powers to the House because it appears that many Deputies do not appear to have familiarised themselves with the provivisions of the law which is already there to deal with this question. Any of the devices outside of plain fraud that were referred to here, simply telling a lie to which you must swear under this law, will not get around the provisions of this 25 per cent stamp duty law as it stands. It will not be evaded by having a solicitor buy land in trust and leaving it there for some foreign owner. That does not avoid the law. Indeed, the man, including the auctioneer, who would try that would get into serious trouble.
I deprecate wild allegations here— which will get publicity elsewhere and which will be believed by people who are not familiar with this line of country—that there is widespread evasion of the law in this field. You must remember that this House, in the Finance Act of 1961, put an end to the devices of the pre-1947 company under which land could be purchased. All these gaps were closed under the 1961 Act. So far as I, or those for whom I am responsible are aware, a way of evading this law has not been found unless by common fraud, and of course you can avoid any law by that method if you are prepared to risk paying the penalty if you are duly caught out.
