Land Bill, 1963—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

NEW SECTION.

Before section 4 to insert the following new section:

"For the purposes of sections *, * and * of this Act, `land' means `agricultural land'."—Deputy O.J. Flanagan.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I feel that the Minister has not given the House a satisfactory explanation as to why the register cannot be compiled in the Land Commission. It would be extremely easy to establish such a register and the Minister for Lands has informed the House that there is in existence such a register which would give this information. Perhaps he would give the House the nature of that register, all the details contained in it, how long it has been kept and how the Land Commission get the information contained in it. Perhaps he would also say whether this is the type of register to which the Minister for Transport and Power referred when he spoke in Castleblayney on New Year's Day. On that occasion he referred to new legislation that was being introduced and everybody took it to mean that it was this Bill, but when the Bill was circulated there was no mention whatever of the register to which the Minister referred.

These amendments are very reasonable. Not only that but they will help to make this Bill workable when it becomes an Act. The Minister has given no indication to the House as to why, deliberately or otherwise, there is no provision in the Bill or any reference to this question of non-nationals. He has not stated in the explanatory memorandum which accompanied the Bill or in anything he has said inside or outside the House that anything was being done about the purchase of land by aliens or any effort being made to gather statistics on the matter.

One of the reasons for putting down these amendments is to find out the extent to which this is a serious national problem. May I make it clear to the House that this Party, now or in the future, have no objection to anybody coming into this country, provided he is coming here for reasons of goodwill. The fact that we have these amendments down will not interfere with the purchase of building sites. These will not be included in the proposed register. There would be no need to include in that register lands purchased for industrial purposes. It has been the policy of this Party and the Government to attract and invite foreign capital to the country for industrial purposes and to provide employment for our people.

These amendments refer only to agricultural land, land which can be used for the production of food for man and beast, land on which so many of our people are depending for their livelihood. I am really surprised at the Minister when he says that this is not such a problem as would require the compilation of such a register so that in future we could put these statistics before the country and the House. I ask the Minister what was the register to which the Minister for Transport and Power was referring, to what new legislation was he referring and if there has been any change since New Year's Day in the terms of this Bill as first outlined by the Government. If we read accurately the speech of the Minister for Transport and Power, we find that there was definite mention of such a register. What has happened since?

Minister for Lands (Mr. Moran)

I understood that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle or you, Sir, ruled that in discussing these amendments, the House should not enter into a general discussion on the purchase of land by foreigners in that such a discussion would be more appropriate on another amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

On amendment No. 33.

Mr. Moran

Therefore I wish to deal with these amendments as they are and with what is proposed in them. In actual fact, this House has already refused to accept these amendments which are simply lifted from a Fine Gael Private Members' Bill introduced in 1961 on this issue. These are the very same proposals as those rejected by this House on the Land (Regulation of Acquisition) Bill, 1961 when that Bill was debated here. Speaking on that Bill at column 1693 of the Official Report of 4th May, 1961, I had this to say:

I propose to inform the House now in more detail, following the statement of the Minister for Finance, of the measures proposed to be taken by the Government in the Finance Bill, which will shortly be before the House, to deal with this matter in so far as the Government, on the information before them at present, consider it should be dealt with. I want to give in broad outline the steps we propose to take in relation to the acquisition of agricultural land by non-nationals. The Minister for Finance announced that the liability for 25 per cent stamp duty will not apply to urban property. It is, of course, intended to continue the existing arrangements whereby it does not apply to residential holdings containing less than five acres or to land which is used for industrial purposes.

I went on to give the details about the proposals that would be contained in the 1961 Finance Bill to set up a register to deal with this matter and I said:

Finally, the Finance Bill will include adequate provisions for ensuring the effectiveness of any new measures by imposing severe penalties for such matters as the furnishing of false information as to the ownership of land, the constitution of companies and so on. As I said, under the previous law any type of declaration could be made. Even the provision of the Statutory Declaration Act did not, in my view, apply to such declarations. Outside certain penal provisions in respect of duties in case of any false declarations in deeds, there will be further provisions, including imprisonment, for any such fraudulent return or any such fraudulent declaration in any such document. From the foregoing, it will be apparent that the Government are ready to implement effective measures to control the tax evasion which is the crux of this matter. The Bill goes no further——

Deputy Dillon asked:

Does the Minister think tax evasion is the crux of the matter? My feeling is that it is the alienation of the land.

I went on:

I think I do. I shall deal with that proposition when I finish what I have to say on this issue. I suggest that the Bill is an innocuous measure that goes no further than to require the Land Commission to set up a register of information about alien purchases. Under the Government measure, it is proposed that the Revenue Commissioners shall keep the Land Commission informed of purchases by non-national interests. In this way, the Land Commission will be in a position to assemble essential information about such transactions. This will be achieved without the irritating and superfluous machinery proposed in this Bill. Appropriate particulars will be made available to members of the House by way of replies to Parliamentary Question or in response to inquiries addressed to my office.

Now, that legal provision, which I foreshadowed then, was duly enshrined in the Finance Act, 1961, and one of the relevant provisions of that Act dealing with this particular issue is subsection (12) of section 33 which provides:

The Revenue Commissioners shall furnish to the Land Commission particulars of all conveyances and transfers coming to their notice where stamp duty is chargeable at the rate provided for by subsection (5) of the 1947 section or where the case falls within subparagraph (i) of paragraph (c) of subsection (4) of that section.

Again, subsection (12) of section 34 provides:

The Revenue Commissioners shall furnish to the Land Commission particulars of all leases coming to their notice where stamp duty is chargeable at the rate provided for by subsection (6) of the 1949 section or where the case falls within subparagraph (1) of paragraph (c) of subsection (4) of that section.

In section 35, the following provision occurs:

Where the Revenue Commissioners are of opinion—

(b) that the passing has resulted from any arrangement or arrangements the main or one of the main purposes of which was the avoidance or reduction of liability to stamp duty under the Stamp Act, 1891, at the rate provided for by subsection (5) of section 13 of the Finance Act... 1947,

the following provisions shall have effect—

The provision then goes on to recite that where this attempt is made to avoid the penal stamp duty laid down under the Finance Act, 1961, section 35 comes into effect; and section 35 enacts in terrorem provisions providing what the Revenue Commissioners can do in such circumstances and the penalties that will follow for those who, by fraud, misrepresentation, or otherwise, have broken the law as laid down.

Under the statutory provisions to which I have referred, the Land Commission get regularly from the Revenue Commissioners particulars of all transactions concerning the transfer of land to any alien. Let me make it clear, because it has been suggested otherwise here, that not alone do the Land Commission get particulars of the cases in which the penal 25 per cent. stamp duty is payable, and has been paid, but they get particulars also of all other cases in which land for any purpose, industrial or otherwise, has been transferred to aliens. The Land Commissioners have certain powers, with the Minister for Finance, to exempt in certain circumstances under their certificate from the penal 25 per cent duty. Every single acre of land sold to any alien is duly registered. When the transfer comes up for stamping, let it be under lease, under conveyance, or any other form, the Revenue Commissioners send particulars to the Land Commission and the Land Commission enter those particulars in their register. The particulars registered comprise (1) the number of transactions involved; (2) the consideration or the purchase money which passed in respect of these transactions; (3) the acreage and extent of the lands; (4) the situation of the lands.

Deputy O.J. Flanagan and others are well aware that from time to time since 1961 I have regularly had questions addressed to me here asking for particulars from this register, the register kept under the statutory provisions I have already cited to the House. I have been asked to give the latest details or information as to the amount of land concerned in these transfers to aliens. Deputy O.J. Flanagan knows quite well that that register is there. Everybody in this House, everybody outside it, knows that that register is there. I do not know how many times in this House, including the last two days, I have had to refute the Deputy's allegations that there is no register in the Land Commission and that nobody knows what amount of land is being transferred to aliens. I do not know what the Deputy's purpose is. Perhaps it is that, if he keeps repeating it often enough, some newspaper will eventually report it and, if it is not contradicted, then someone will assume that what the Deputy says is true.

The fact is this House, in its wisdom, provided in 1961 for the setting up of this register. Month by month we get from the Revenue Commissioners details of all these transactions. If some people try to evade the law, and they are discovered, there are methods of dealing with them under section 35 of the Finance Act, 1961, and the other penal sections, just as there are provisions in the law to deal with lawbreakers of different sorts. Those who allege that this register is not accurate, or that the law is not being observed, should give me particulars of the cases for investigation. I have asked time and again for particulars and, at the moment, I have got some information about two particular cases in which I suspect the law may have been broken. These are under investigation. That is not to say, however, that any legal device has been discovered to get round the law as laid down by this House under the Finance Act of 1961.

I do not know what Fine Gael policy is on this matter. Perhaps we shall have a more general discussion on what it is when we come to the Labour Party amendment dealing with land being acquired by foreigners. Let me say in passing that in regard to a few of the larger deals I investigated of transfers of land to foreigners, I wound up by finding that the vendors were members of the Fine Gael hierarchy.

I do not accept for a moment the suggestion by Deputy Flanagan that stamp duty is being avoided by foreigners having children here and putting the land in their children's names. There must be something salubrious about the Irish climate if a foreigner can arrive here and immediately produce a child in whose name he can purchase Irish land. Furthermore, I challenge the Deputy's legal knowledge when he asserts that, if a Russian couple are grounded at Shannon for a fortnight and the Russian wife gives birth to a baby, that baby becomes an Irish citizen. In drawing on his imagination as to how this 25 per cent stamp duty is being avoided, the Deputy had better think up a more acceptable proposition than foreign children being used for the purpose of evading it.

The expressions of Fine Gael policy made by Deputy Flanagan, Deputy Donegan and Deputy Dillon differ vastly in so far as these Deputies have given their views on this issue. Deputy Donegan assured us they had no objection at all to foreigners except where they bought land inside the congested districts. He said that foreigners he knew buying land in his area were doing a very good job and giving a great deal of employment. He was expressing Fine Gael policy on that issue. Deputy Flanagan stated here today that he welcomed foreign capital and that Fine Gael had no objection to foreigners buying building sites and purchasing land for industrial purposes. On the other hand, both inside and outside this House, Deputy Dillon bemoans the influx of foreign capital into this country. He suggests we would have a balance of payments problem here were it not that Irish land and businesses were being sold to foreigners. He said there was foreign money coming in buying up old-established businesses and that was a very bad thing.

However, these Deputies expressing all these different views on this issue conveniently forget that it was Deputy Sweetman, their Minister for Finance in the inter-Party Government, who in a Finance Bill provided for the removal of the 25 per cent penal stamp duty on the sale of property or business with less than five acres of land. It would appear, therefore, that the Fine Gael Party think this matter has changed drastically since Deputy Sweetman opened this gap to enable any foreigner to acquire an Irish business or Irish land comprising less than five acres.

I do not know which is the official view of the Fine Gael Party on this. I do not know whether they have changed their minds in regard to the 25 per cent stamp duty which they bitterly opposed when it was introduced by this Government and which Deputy Dillon described as another piece of Fianna Fáil codology. My difficulty in regard to Fine Gael policy is, as in the case of the thimbles and the pea, to find out under which thimble the official pea is.

These amendments are lifted directly from the Private Members' Bill which was introduced and defeated in this House away back in 1961. For those who have any interest in the matter, let me say I went through that Bill at that time section by section including these amendments and pointed out how unworkable it would be and that it would be useless for the purpose it was expressed to serve.

The main purpose of these amendments is to set up a register. I have pointed out, first, that there is already a register there, set up under the law passed by this House in 1961, and I pointed out the details that are kept in that register.

Secondly these proposals would not make one more acre of land available for the land reform programme. That appears to be admitted and that point was made by Deputy McQuillan and others here last night. Thirdly, these amendments would not increase the Land Commission's powers to acquire land; fourthly, every purchaser of land would have to insist on the vendor proving his nationality to ensure that he was not a non-national whose initial purchase of land was void and of no effect; and fifthly, the proposals are indiscriminating inasmuch as one of these amendments covers property in a street. I have already referred to the provisions made by Deputy Flanagan's Party for the relief of property purchased by aliens in towns or streets.

Finally, the provisions about companies would be unworkable. It would be a complete nuisance to companies with a large number of shareholders. When the 1961 Bill was before the House, I gave an instance of how impossible the situation would be for a firm such as Guinness who would be required to provide a list of their shareholders, and if they had a subsidiary for growing grain or for any other purpose, the same procedure would be necessary. For all these reasons, these amendments are completely unworkable, would serve no purpose and I fail to appreciate any of the arguments used as to why the House should accept them.

Let me say, although I suppose this will be more appropriate to the discussion of the amendment dealing directly with the purchase of land by non-nationals—that, as the Minister for Transport and Power has said, there are many sections in this Bill that will be of very important value to the Land Commission in dealing with non-nationals. There is, for instance, the provision that I expect the House will pass — the residence provision. The Land Commission can immediately move in in any case where the individual does not reside on or in the immediate vicinity of the lands and, under that provision, any of these people who, it has been suggested to this House, merely purchase land here and go away and come back once in a blue moon would be caught.

Again there are provisions in the Bill enabling the Land Commission to buy land by public auction for any purpose, not for the restricted purpose that was the law before this Bill was introduced, but for any of their purposes. Again, there will be freedom under this Bill to purchase land for cash where such an operation is the more desirable. Where they hear of land for sale or where land for sale is reported to them that provision would enable them to step in quickly and lively before some of these aliens would have an opportunity of purchasing.

There are all these other provisions that I will deal with more fully when we come to discuss this direct issue on an amendment before the House whereby this Bill will be of the greatest assistance to the Land Commission in dealing with that aspect of the problem in so far as it is a problem, as well as the many other aspects of the land congestion problem.

I, therefore, for all these reasons and, in particular, because of the fact that in so far as we require a register we already have a register established by the law of this House, suggest that the House should reject all these amendments.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Can the Minister go further on this? I feel he can. Can he now disclose the identity of the register to which he has referred? He tells us that in the Land Commission there is a register in which full details concerning the purchase of land by non-nationals are entered. Can he now tell the House the exact extent of that register and can he tell us from that register the amount of land held by non-nationals?

This is not the first occassion on which the Minister has made reference to this register. Can he go further? Can he give us an idea of the details concerning purchasers and the nature and quality of the land purchased as entered in that register? On more than one occasion the Minister has told us that he has consulted this register and that this register has revealed to him that the nature and type of land so purchased by non-nationals is bad and of poor quality. Can he now tell us whether this register gives an accurate account as to whether the land is highly arable, mixed, suitable for tillage or grazing, of poor quality, suitable for forestry, turbary, whether it is suitable only for grouse shooting or game, or to what extent the register gives details of the nature and type of land purchased, to the knowledge of the Land Commission, by aliens?

To keep the names and addresses of non-nationals who purchase land written down in a jotter in the Land Commission is not enough, more particularly when the Minister now states that he knows of a case or two in which stamp duty has been avoided. We may take it that if stamp duty has been avoided, the names and addresses of the purchasers and details of the property are not entered in the register which the Minister alleges is in the Land Commission.

I put it to the Minister and to the House that there is practically no county in Ireland today which does not contain tracts of land which are in the ownership of non-nationals. Does the Minister seriously tell this House that every acre of land which is now in the name of a non-national or in the ownership of a non-national is entered in black and white in a register in the Land Commission? A few moments ago he told us that the information he gets for the purpose of the compilation of that register comes from the Revenue Commissioners. Surely, if people evade payment of the duty and if the Revenue Commissioners have no knowledge of a transaction, it cannot be entered in the Land Commission register?

The Minister referred to the possibility of a non-national putting land or property into the name of any of his children. I do not know whether the Minister is trying to be funny or not. Children do not come overnight. It is an established fact that an alien may be in this country for two, three or four years before becoming an Irish citizen and some of his children may be born during that period in this country. That does happen. There is nothing to stop such non-national, whose child is Irish by birth, and who has not under the Aliens Act taken out Irish Citizenship, from placing on deposit very substantial sums of money in the name of that child and transferring such sums of money for the purchase and transfer of property to be executed in the name of the child.

That is taking place and the Minister knows it is taking place. Such a purchase of land by a non-national is not entered on the register to which the Minister has referred and cannot possibly be. If the Minister has such great reliance on the accuracy of the register that he alleges is in the Land Commission, why does he not tell the country or this House, county by county, constituency by constituency, the exact extent of the purchase of land and ownership of land in this country by non-nationals as revealed by that register?

If the alleged register is correct— which I doubt very much—the statistics obtained and circulated by the National Farmers Association cannot be accurate. Yet, the National Farmers Association is an organisation representative of farmers of every townland and village in Ireland who were asked by their headquarters to complete a memorandum giving details of each townland in the Twenty-Six Counties of land purchased by non-nationals.

Mr. Moran

On a point of order. I respectfully submit that this is not relevant to this amendment. It will no doubt be relevant and we shall deal with it when we come to discuss the amendment dealing with the purchase of land by non-nationals but what the NFA did or did not do is completely irrelevant to the amendment to section 4.

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps it would be no harm for me to say at this stage that the Chair regards these amendments merely as machinery amendments setting up a machine called a register to register certain people who are supposed to acquire land in this country. The extent or the limitation of the area of land or the people getting the land does not arise on these amendments. It would arise more relevantly on the amendments referred to by the Minister. Therefore, the limitation of the area acquired by aliens or the limitation of the number of people does not relevantly arise on this.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

My argument is that it will be too late to provide machinery of this kind when the problem has reached the stage where drastic remedies will have to be applied and that we must on this occasion provide the machinery.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have no objection to discussing the type of machinery.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is what we must get down to in this amendment. The amendments very clearly set out that in order to set up this machinery, we must define the full name of the purchaser, his nationality, his address, if any, within the State; his address outside the State at which he ordinarily resides; the townland, street, parish, barony and county in which the land is situated. If we are to set up the machinery to deal with this problem, I put it to the Minister that the steps taken by the NFA to ascertain the townland, street, parish, barony and county are necessary to find out to what extent this is a national problem. The details required, as set out in the amendments we have tabled, are absolutely necessary.

In addition, the area of the land, its rateable valuation, the consideration for which it is purchased and the nature of the estate or interest which the purchaser will take under the conveyance, transfer or lease are necessary details. These are exactly what we are discussing in this amendment. The Minister for Lands, for some reason unknown to me, is deliberately evading the issues at stake in these amendments. I have already asked the Minister, who has remained silent, whether he will give us an idea, without mentioning names if he does not wish to do so, what is the type of register to which he refers? Does it contain the provisions outlined in my amendment? If it does, we may take a different view of the situation. But the Minister has not enlightened us. I have quoted, and the Minister has read, the nine provisions of the amendments as set out for the purchase of land by non-nationals that we require in this register.

I fully agree with the Ceann Comhairle when he says these amendments are for the purpose of setting up machinery in order that we may accurately estimate the seriousness of this problem. How will this House set up machinery to deal with this national problem when this Bill is passed and when it will be too late? Is it not the right time to do it when this Bill is passing through the House? Is this not the only opportunity we shall get of airing the necessity for the establishment of a register in the Land Commission for this purpose? These amendments together provide the machinery for finding out exactly how much land is being bought by foreigners, the type of land and the places where it is being bought. Has the Minister that information in his Land Commission register? That is what we want to hear because it is of the greatest importance.

Amendment No. 4 provides that the Land Commission will establish a register to record every sale of land to a non-national. Subsection (3) of the amendment is necessary because in subsection (2) of amendment No. 5 failure by a non-national to notify the Land Commission of his purchase would make the conveyance to a non-national void. Accordingly, a person who would buy land from a non-national if the latter did not register would require to know from the Land Commission whether that non-national had registered his purchase with the Land Commission because if he did not register, the non-national could not convey good title to an Irish purchaser. I hope that is clear because it is the root of our argument, that is, the importance of having established by the laws of this House a register of the type we suggest.

Subsection (3) of amendment No. 4, therefore, entitles an intending purchaser from a non-national to find out whether the non-national has complied with the new provisions. That is a very reasonable request and I cannot see what serious objection the Minister, the Land Commission or this House can have to such a provision to safeguard the land of the country for our people. These provisions are absolutely necessary.

Subsection (1) of amendment No. 5, in effect, prescribes that persons and companies in the categories set out in paragraphs (1) and (2) do not have to register their purchases but all other persons and companies must. That is very reasonable and we are not unreasonable in our anxiety to remedy this very serious problem. Section 3 of the Aliens Act, 1935, with which the Minister is doubtless familiar, provides that an alien may own, take, acquire or dispose of land and personal property in the same way as an Irish citizen. Subsection (2) of amendment No. 5 alters this position to provide that this equality of capacity which an alien has with an Irish citizen to hold, acquire or sell property will not apply to aliens, unless they furnish the Land Commission with the required particulars before they take a conveyance of agricultural land.

There can be nothing simpler or clearer to tie up this matter properly in order to safeguard the interests of Irish purchasers of land. Unless we set up by law the necessary register to tie up the matter in this way, there can be many serious results and we shall not have the machinery to deal with them unless the Minister accepts these amendments.

There is no doubt that any figures the Minister may have cannot be relied upon because even if he gives us the figures from the alleged register in the Land Commission, what information has he, or the Revenue Commissioners, or the Minister for Finance, on the numerous purchases of land where the 25 per cent stamp duty has been evaded? Does the Minister not know very well that many non-nationals, who do not give a thraneen about the 25 per cent duty, make up their minds to come here and purchase land?

Mr. Moran

That, again, is not germane to these amendments.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The setting up of this register as set out in these amendments is necessary for the proper working of this Bill. In fact, I cannot understand how the Bill will function successfully unless such a register is compiled and kept in the Land Commission. Any Minister for Lands seriously interested in applying a suitable remedy to the land problem must have access to an accurate source of information down to the last perch of land purchased by non-nationals. That source would be the register we suggest in these amendments.

We ask that in the case of corporations, companies or organisations coming in here to buy land, that the names, addresses and nationalities of the shareholders be entered in a register. Companies coming in here may be very reputable but is there anything wrong in the Land Commission entering details about them in such a register? Today the Minister referred to a firm of world-wide reputation for its integrity and decency. Why he picked on that firm I do not know. We suggest that the Land Commission enter in the register the number and the nominal value of the shares held by each shareholder. Let us assume for one moment that we have the return of Paul Singer. Supposing he tries to come back here to purchase a large tract of land as the alleged director of a company.

Mr. Moran

Paul Singer could avoid stamp duty only by using the Fine Gael company, Forum, Limited, for that purpose as already has been done.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Fianna Fáil Party helped Paul Singer to fleece the people of this country.

Mr. Moran

The hypocrisy of those people makes me sick. Let the Deputy wait until I come to deal with the Labour amendment and I shall give him chapter and verse about the Fine Gael Party.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would draw Deputy Flanagan's attention to the fact that these matters do not arise in this discussion.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I am suggesting that people of that kind may at the moment come into this country and may describe themselves as managing directors. They may not measure up to the rigid standards of integrity we would desire. Surely it is right for us to ask such people for details concerning their company and to have these details entered in a register? In these amendments, we ask that particulars of the townland, street, parish, barony and county in which the purchased land is situated be entered. I put it to the Minister that such details are absolutely necessary in regard to any such group of aliens coming into this country. It would, in fact, help the Minister in that he would have to hand a ready reference to every perch of land so purchased; he would have information as to whether the land was unsuitable for the relief of congestion; he would be able to say whether the land was so poor that nobody in the district was interested in it and that they were, in fact, glad to see people from outside taking the land up.

The most important feature of these amendments is the suggestion that the area of land so purchased be entered. Apart altogether from giving the Minister very valuable information about land purchase by foreigners, it would serve to keep an effective check on such purchases at any given time. We also ask that the rateable valuation or, as it is called, the poor law valuation, be required to be entered in the suggested register. Such information would help to determine the quality of the land purchased. We also wish to have in this register details of the purchase price of the land. In the absence of such a register, the Minister or the Government will not have details of the amount of money non-nationals spend on the purchase of Irish land.

As a matter of interest, I should like now from the Minister information as to the amount of money paid by non-nationals for land in this country. He will be able to give that like a shot if the register is functioning as he says. But I doubt if it is. However, we will test that in a short time. If he tells us he has not got the information, he may be able to get it this afternoon. He has an army of officials who may be able to look into the register and have the information by 3.20 p.m. If the Minister is right when he says he has this register with all the information, why is it being kept so secret? Perhaps it is, as Deputy McQuillan said, a 2½d. copybook with the names and addresses of aliens who may have purchased land. That is not sufficient. We want the details asked for in these amendments.

It is part of the Minister's duty to tell the House to what extent the purchase of land by aliens is a major problem. He should be able to tell us from this register that £x were spent on the purchase of Irish land by aliens, the exact acreage purchased, and whether it was purchased by individuals or companies. It is easy for the Minister to assure the House of the existence of something of which we have no proof. When we challenge the Minister to quote from it, he cannot do so; when we ask him to give us information from it, he cannot do so. If the register is in existence and the Minister can give the House statistics from it, I believe those statistics will reveal a fantastic investment by aliens in the purchase of Irish land.

What we require is the nature and extent of the interest in the land and whether the purchaser taxes it under a conveyance, a transfer or lease. That is of the greatest possible importance. My information is that, in addition to the amount of land which has been purchased outright by aliens, who may or may not have paid the 25 per cent duty, there are vasts tracts of land leased to aliens for periods of years. It is generally believed in the areas concerned, even where the lands are only leased, that the lands have been purchased outright. Can the Minister give us from the alleged register details of lands leased to aliens? Has he any idea of the seriousness of that situation?

Taking everything into consideration, I believe these amendments are necessary for the smooth working of the Bill. I want to assure the Minister that there is nobody more anxious than those of us on this side of the House to see an efficient up-to-date Land Bill in order to help solve the problem of congestion. We are not being obstructive or destructive in our criticism. We are trying to be helpful to the Minister. We believe it is our duty as an Opposition to advise the Minister and to make recommendations to him as to how the Bill may be improved. Our criticism of the Bill is our contribution towards making a more workable Bill, that will bring the greatest benefit not only to the people in the congested districts but to all small holders and deserving applicants for land.

I would ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. He cannot pick holes in the case we have made because it is based on fact. This register should be set up and should by law render the title deeds of any property purchased by non-nationals as useless for re-sale unless the person is registered in this register. Apart from whatever political bias he may have, I have always found the Minister to be a reasonable man to speak to outside the House. Seemingly, he is bound up with his Party when he comes into the House. I venture to say that, if I were to talk to him outside the doors of this House, he would say there was a terrible lot of commonsense and intelligence in my amendments.

The Minister knows that the setting up of this register is most desirable, but he feels that if he agrees to establish it, Deputy Dillon could say: "In 1961, I brought in a Bill proposing the setting up of such a register but it was rejected by the House at the time. Later on, however, the Government had to accept the full terms of the Bill." These amendments would be gladly and readily accepted by the Minister but for the fact that he has such an amount of political pride that he does not want it said from this side of the House that the register outlined in my amendments was suggested as permanent legislation in 1961 by the Leader of the Opposition. He does not want to have it said that Fine Gael forced this on the Land Commission.

I believe the Land Commissioners themselves feel that such a register is necessary and desirable. In addition, in 1961 members of the Government expressed their approval of the Private Bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. If the Government were serious in dealing with this problem, they would have accepted that private Bill and have this register set up. No matter how desirable the setting up of this register is, the one thing that will defeat it is overweening political pride on the part of the Minister. I suggest to him that he could come out with flying colours, and really make a name for himself, if he buried his political pride. Let him say: "We will do it, whatever we may think of Deputy Dillon." I am sure the backbenchers of the Fianna Fáil Party think a good deal of Deputy Dillon, because he made most of them prosperous men when he was Minister for Agriculture. In so doing, the Minister would show a high degree of sincerity.

I ask him very sincerely to reconsider his attitude towards these amendments. They were not put down for fun. They were given very serious and prolonged consideration. The necessity for them has been established by the wide contacts between Deputies of our Party and the NFA and their knowledge of the serious problems that exist in each barony, parish, townland and county. For that reason I sincerely recommend the adoption of the amendments by the Minister.

Mr. Crotty

Deputy Flanagan has made a wonderful case for these amendments, and I appeal to the Minister to adopt them and establish the register. I was very disturbed last week when I saw a report in the papers of a case in the High Court where a farm in my county was purchased by an alien who came over by chartered plane to purchase that farm for £30,000. That person now says he bought it under false pretences. There were some fishing rights with the farm. I wonder was that sale registered? The person who sold the farm gave evidence that he gave false particulars to the Minister's Department about the salmon taken on the river.

Mr. Moran

I think that case is still sub judice.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If it is sub judice, it may not be discussed here.

Mr. Crotty

The person who sold the farm gave evidence that he did not supply accurate information to the Department, and the man who purchased the farm took an action to have the sale rescinded.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the case is sub judice, it should not be discussed here.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is one case. My argument and Deputy Crotty's is that there are numerous such cases which have not come to light.

Mr. Crotty

The purchaser took over a company in Molesworth Street, and the person selling the land had another company in the same building. A large farm in Kilkenny was sold by a company in one room in Molesworth Street to another company in another room in the same building. Is that not extraordinary? Is it not a case in itself for the establishment of a register? Is it not extraordinary that that could happen? A farm in my county was transferred from one person in a room in Molesworth Street to another person in another room in the same building. As I said, evidence was given that accurate particulars were not supplied by the person who sold the farm.

The Minister said he has a register. I wonder is this sale on the register in the Department of Lands? Before this section is put, I should like the Minister to state that this particular sale at Ballycallan for £30,000 is on the register. I should like to know that. I think the register proposed in the amendments should be established. There is a necessity for a proper register giving particulars of all valuations and purchase prices. The case for it made by Deputy Flanagan is very good, and it was borne out further by the case in the High Court as recently as last week. We were all very upset that that could happen. The purchaser came over by chartered plane, not ordinary plane. He could not wait. He was in too much of a hurry to buy land in Kilkenny which could have been used to help uneconomic holders. I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendments.

Mr. Donegan

Last night I was making the case that one of the best reasons for accepting the amendments was the amount of detail into which they went, the necessity for that detail, and the inadequacy of any simple list or register of aliens buying land. I think that case has been made by other speakers this morning. I was dealing with amendment No. 5 and with the position of a limited liability company. I said that you have a limited liability company with a small number of shares held by a person who is named for life as the governing director of that company. In subsection (2) of amendment No. 5, the onus is placed on the purchaser to register. The conveyance is null and void unless the person to whom the land is conveyed notifies the Land Commission at least seven days before the conveyance.

If there is a grave divergence between the figures of the Minister's Department and the NFA who conducted a survey on the purchase of lands by aliens, there is something wrong somewhere. I am not suggesting that the NFA are right in every figure, and that the Minister is wrong in every figure. This Party are convinced that what is required is a detailed register and a detailed approach to the problem such as they have produced in these amendments.

If you move to amendment No. 6, you will find that considerable detail is required. Again, as between the purchase of land by an individual person and the purchase of land by a limited liability or public company, the purchase is dealt with publicly so as to ensure that the full details and all the necessary details in each case are provided and registered in this detailed register which is so different from any general register at present in existence.

Take amendment No. 6. In paragraph (i)—again, the number of the section, if it were introduced, is something we do not know, but we can leave that to the draftsman afterwards —the details that would be inserted in this section, of whatever number, are very great. For instance, we must have the full name of the purchaser; the nationality of the purchaser; the address, if any, of the purchaser within the State; the address of the purchaser outside the State at which he ordinarily resides; the townland or street, parish, barony and county in which the land is situate; the area of the land; the rateable value of the land; the consideration for which the land is being purchased; the nature of the estate or interest in the land which the purchaser will take under the conveyance, transfer or lease. That last point is most important. We have heard Deputy Crotty tell of two companies in two rooms in Molesworth Street. It is not too difficult to form a limited liability company dealing with large tracts of land.

The movement of land by sale from one company to another can completely bedevil the general register which the Minister has and we can have this discrepancy between the NFA figures and the Minister's figures. On this particular point, we insist that the nature of the estate or interest in the land which the purchaser will take under the conveyance, transfer or lease shall be made known. I think that is a very good safeguard.

In paragraph (ii) of this proposed new section in amendment No. 6, we have the portion dealing with the purchase of land by a limited liability company. We must get the names, addresses and nationality of every shareholder. We must get the number, nominal value and class of shares held by each shareholder. These are very important points. We must get the townland or street, parish, barony and county in which the land is situated; the area of the land, the rateable value of the land, the consideration for which the land is being purchased and the nature of the estate or interest in the land which the purchaser will take under the conveyance, transfer or lease. These are the things that, to my mind, are so important.

We have been told of all the different methods and ways of avoiding stamp duty. Let us face it. You employ a solicitor today in your interest and within the law. It is his job to do the work for you as cheaply as possible so long as he can draw his own fees. But his job is to get you out as cheaply as possible as far as payments to any outside individual of any kind are concerned, as well as estate duties, and so on. So long as he can keep you within the law, that is his job. Therefore, the effort to avoid stamp duty— and, let us face it, to a certain extent quite a successful effort—on the part of aliens buying land—again, a legitimate effort—must bedevil the general register which the Minister has. The value of this type of register is that if anybody wishes to conduct a detailed investigation, all the facts are there. It might well be that, on examining, for instance, the purchase of land by limited liability companies and public companies, the person who wanted to investigate the matter could factually decide by and large within this register —even though, according to the register, it would be a sale of land to foreigners so long as there was a foreigner there at all—whether or not it was an Irish operation.

We on this side of the House have no great fetish about this thing. We are not hysterical about it. We concede that to a certain extent it is probably true that this has not reached massive proportions as yet but it is absolutely necessary that a detailed register should be kept and should be available. There are many cases where land which is not being farmed as it should at the present moment could give more employment to Irish nationals at higher wages if the amount of capital that some aliens seem to have to invest and indeed in certain cases the amount of knowhow could be applied—and this is a good thing: there is nothing wrong with it.

The whole centre of this situation is that the amount of money being devoted to land division is nothing like the amount of money being spent in the sale and purchase of land during any particular year. Therefore, we have not any fantastic effort in our mind to exclude everybody who is not an Irish national. At the same time, we want to see that the register is kept as and from now and that this information is there in detail. Then we shall be in a position to examine it and to see if the problem is to assume the massive proportions that some people already assume it has. Perhaps they are half right. Perhaps the Minister is half wrong or half right, whichever way you want to look at it. However, it does appear as if they are not both right all the way.

As far as I know, the NFA figures for Louth and Meath are fairly correct. Whether or not that adds up to the same situation throughout the country I do not know because I have not at present the contacts to know about other Deputies' constituencies. The Minister said he has dealt with these figures elsewhere. In face of a serious amending measure here, he should deal with them again with us now.

Mr. Moran

They are completely irrevelant here. They will be relevant later, on another amendment.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): The mere fact that the Minister has set up a register at all, ineffective though it may be in many regards, suggests that he accepts the principle of the necessity for it. It may be, indeed, that originally when set up, it was not spontaneously generated in the minds of the Fianna Fáil hierarchy. It may be that the Private Members' Bill introduced here by the Opposition in 1961 and subsequent agitation up and down the country in the Press, in NFA circles, and so on, to a certain extent pushed the Government into introducing the 1961 Finance measure and establishing what they call the register. It may also be that we have perhaps subconsciously in the back of our minds the feeling that the Government did that with a certain degree of reluctance and have not really put their heart into the matter.

As I said, we are merely seeking to have a more ambitious register than the Minister has at the moment. It is bad even for international relations that this continual public agitation should go on about the excessive purchase of land by aliens. If the production of a more perfect type of register which would try to stop the gaps which appear to exist here and there would lead to a lessening of public discussion on this matter, then the Minister should turn his mind in that direction. He mentioned that the register did disclose certain information, the name in the transaction, the acreage and the site, but the great difficulty arises as between the figures which the Minister gives in answer to questions and the figures which other sources produce from time to time, chiefly the surveys carried out by the NFA.

It is quite impossible for the average citizen to reconcile the great discrepancy that exists between the two sets of figures. I do not know how the Minister will explain it. He will probably say that his register is right, but at the same time he did admit to two cases which were under investigation. The Minister is a lawyer and every lawyer will admit that there are loopholes in most Acts. Deputy Flanagan has mentioned one or two ways in which the purchase of land by aliens can be carried out without having to pay this 25 per cent duty. Deputy Flanagan's amendment mentions names, addresses and the nationality of company shareholders and the number, nominal value and class of shares held by each shareholder. There has been widespread feeling that a little racket has been going on through some manipulation of the company laws and the manipulation of shareholding by which people who are registered as companies have secured land and have succeeded in evading the purchase tax.

The rateable value, according to the Minister's statement, does not seem to be entered in the register which the Land Commission keep for the Minister. That should be a routine entry. In paragraph (g) in amendment No. 6, there is a reference to the nature of the estate or interest in the land which the purchaser will take under the conveyance, transfer or lease. It has been stated time and again that a lot of land is being leased to aliens. I would ask the Minister if he can reconcile the figures given by voluntary agencies such as the NFA and the figures given by his Department. We are asking for nothing more, and it is a reasonable request, then, that a better type of register be set up. Even if it never uncovered an illegal transfer of property, if it merely quietened public discussion and settled public opinion, it would have achieved its purpose. If, on the other hand, it does disclose grave abuses, then the question of whether the 25 per cent purchase duty should be increased may have to be considered.

The people of this country are very sensitive about the purchase of land. Traditionally, it is about the only thing we ever had. The Minister comes from a part of the country in which an agrarian dispute has a traditional tincture. I am sure, as Deputy Flanagan says, that he is a reasonable man and that he will meet this request in a reasonable fashion, that he will not try to steamroll his Bill as drafted through the House and will not use a battering ram on every amendment put up by this side of the House.

Mr. Sweetman

There is only one point I wish to make. Before the passage of the Finance Act which deals with this matter, the Minister must know as a solicitor that certain people, not reputable people, were purporting to use a method of purchase which was in fact a breach of the law and this register would bring it to light, but nothing short of the register will bring it to light. I refer to the purchase of post-1940 companies in respect of which the shareholders were Irish nationals. They gave a blank transfer and option to the foreigners to purchase those shares. Any conveyancing or other counsel will make it perfectly clear that once an option and blank transfer of that sort has been given, the person concerned is no longer in beneficial ownership of the company. Notwithstanding that fact, declarations were given that beneficial ownership was vested in an Irish citizen. It was not. The legal ownership was vested in the Irish citizen but the beneficial ownership was vested in the person who had the option, plus the blank transfer.

The Minister in his private capacity must have heard, as I have, a great many stories about that. As I say, I am quite convinced that no reputable solicitor ever did give a certificate in those circumstances but no matter who dealt with it, there were a substantial number of cases and that is the only explanation of the considerable difference in the two sets of figures which are given at different periods. The register suggested by us will have the effect of bringing those to light and of making sure that where there has been any breach of the law in these respects, that breach will be ascertained and can be dealt with appropriately, as well as making certain that the register itself will be a complete record of transactions.

Mr. Clinton

The Minister says he has a register which tells him that there is no serious transfer of Irish land to foreigners. The opposite view is held by many people and there is much dissatisfaction about the information in that register if it presents that picture. These amendments call for an accurate register, giving every detail in relation to the transfer of land and I fail to see why the Minister is opposing them. He has a register which does not give any such detail and why does he oppose the establishment of a register that will give him all the information? If he wants to prove that there is no such serious transfer of land, surely there would be information in such a register to help him to prove that?

The Minister has expressed the view that there is some confusion and difference of opinion in the minds of Deputies on this side of the House in relation to the transfer of Irish land to foreigners. When it comes to a division on these amendments, and I hope there will be a division on them, he will have no doubt as to whether Deputies on this side of the House are at one in their opposition to the transfer of Irish land to foreigners so long as we have so many Irish nationals in need of that land.

Mr. Donegan

Deputy Sweetman has in his professional way given quite an enlightening exposition of the situation. He gave the exact method by which the Minister's register could be confused and the method by which certain disreputable solicitors do succeed in evading stamp duty and also in removing themselves from the Minister's general register. We are trying to cure this situation and it is most necessary that we do so. The figures in the Minister's register and those of the NFA survey show grave discrepancies. In the NFA survey, I know from my personal knowledge that 200 acres have been sold at Clonee, 200 at Kells, 150 at Trim, 600 at Athy. I do not know this last case of my own knowledge.

Mr. Moran

You do not know when these transactions took place, whether it was 100 years ago, 50 years ago or ten years ago.

Mr. Donegan

The Minister has introduced the question of time. The thought behind the amendments which the Minister is not disposed to accept is that there is disquiet in the country as to the purchase of land by foreigners. I have made it clear that our reason for putting down the amendments is that while we have grave suspicions about the matter, we really do not know. We cannot know until a detailed register is kept. Suppose there were changes, five, ten or 15 years ago, surely they are proof that a trend is developing of too great a movement of land to foreigners? Who cares what happened five or ten years ago? The general question is whether the trend is serious.

As far as I know, there are occasions on which we would not mind land being bought and worked by foreigners. I know a case in County Louth where a foreigner came in and bought land and employed four or five times the number of Irish nationals as had been employed on it previously and paid them £10 10s. and £11 a week, with some earning more in piece work in picking brussels sprouts. That is good. There is nothing wrong with that. If we gave congests the acreage they have been getting up to recently, they probably would not make that much on it.

We want to find out if there is such wholesale transfer of land to foreigners as would affect the operations of the Land Commission, as would affect the opportunities of the farmers' sons to get land in their own areas. Apparently the Minister wants to put us in the position of not knowing exactly what the situation is. I think Deputy Sweetman's intervention on one particular legal point has shown that there is some real reason for our disquiet. Does the Minister agree with Deputy Sweetman that this is a method whereby a disreputable solicitor could do this? If he disagrees with him, he should say so but he probably agrees that this could be done and that it has been done.

That is one of the reasons why the admittedly incomplete survey which I have before me gives a list of transfers of land which seems to be much more accurate than that given by the Minister. This seems to me to be the best argument produced yet in favour of these detailed amendments. Let us consider for a moment individual items in this list. I know them well, and Deputy Tully knows every one I have mentioned as well as I do.

The Minister has put up no case against it. He has remained silent in regard to the alleged register, which may or may not be in existence in the Land Commission.

Mr. Moran

That final remark is typical of the statements made by Deputy Flanagan. I have given particulars from this register since it was established in 1961 in reply to questions. The Deputy knows that well. I realise the Deputy has his instructions to hold this measure up as long as possible and, on a Committee Stage, he can waste as much of the time of the House as he likes. He is aware the register is there. He is aware that the Land Commission must be notified under the law. An individual form is supplied in each case by the Revenue Commissioners setting out the property purchased by the alien, the money paid for it, and describing the property. The poor law valuations are not given because it is not necessary to give them in a conveyance. In the case of registered land, the folio number is sufficient. In the case of non-registered land or land in pure realty, the description is given, including the extent of the property and the price paid. Having got those particulars, it is an easy matter for the Land Commission to check.

It has been ruled that discussion on the NFA document is not relevant on these amendments and I do not propose to follow any red herring in that regard. I shall deal with the matter on an amendment dealing with the purchase of lands by aliens. It will be relevant then. I have been asked if I accept Deputy Sweetman's statement as to what some alleged disreputable solicitors have done. I have pointed out on several occasions in this House that, if anyone is prepared to commit a deliberate fraud, he can do so provided he is prepared to take the consequences. The shop boy can continue robbing the till and falsifying the receipts until he is caught out. There is no difference in essence between that and the proposition Deputy Sweetman has posed here because if what Deputy Sweetman alleged occurs in any case, this is the position under section 34 (8) (a) of the Finance Act, 1961:—

Where a person makes a false statement or declaration for the purposes of establishing that an instrument is not chargeable with stamp duty at the rate provided for by subscription (5) of the 1949 section, such person shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of five hundred pounds, or at the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

To deal with the specific case Deputy Sweetman poses about blank transfer forms of shares being executed for this purpose, I refer the House to sub-paragraph (b) of the same section:

Where an offence under this subsection is committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been committed under the authority of, or with the consent or approval of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to have committed the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Therefore, if anybody is prepared to make a false declaration, to swear a lie, for the purpose of avoiding this stamp duty, he comes within the provisions of that section. I have not suggested at any stage that any law passed by this House will not be deliberately broken by somebody. However, if people are prepared to commit a criminal offence, that is their business and they can take the consequences. I doubt very much if there would be many people, even a disreputable solicitor, who would chance that. Outside whatever else might happen to the disreputable solicitor by way of going to gaol, and so on, he would be a solicitor no longer when this was brought to the notice of the Incorporated Law Society. These are the risks these people would have to take and these are the penalties to which such people leave themselves open if they engage in fraud of the type described by Deputy Sweetman.

I do not say that there are not people who will be foolish enough to break the law in this respect. It happens every day of the week in all walks of life. However, I am quite sure Deputy Sweetman will accept and confirm to his colleagues over there that the position of which I have informed the House is, in fact, the legal position.

Our people are not slow to bring such matters to official notice when they arise. This is a small country, and by and large, outside the city of Dublin and across into rural Ireland, practically everybody knows everybody else and indeed everybody else's business. If fraud of this type occurred in some place, I should be surprised if it did not come to light before very long. As Deputy Donegan said, as the law stands, if it is a matter of a body corporate, one can very soon ascertain, by making a search in the Companies Office, information about any company.

In our experience since the passage of the Finance Act of 1961, no such case as this has come to our notice. There is one case of which I heard where this type of transaction was suggested and inquiries are being made into it, as we would have to inquire into any such allegation about any of these transactions. It is not correct for any Deputy to suggest that, despite the passage of the Finance Act, 1961, there is a genuine legal way of avoiding this stamp duty. Certainly no such case has come to my notice nor have I heard of it through my Department or through contacts outside my Department.

If these amendments were accepted, it would not in any way seal off the fraudulent transactions posed by Deputy Sweetman. If people were prepared to swear a false declaration under the existing law for the purpose of avoiding stamp duty, surely they would be prepared to commit a further fraud if the particulars suggested in these amendments were required from them. Deputy Sweetman has mentioned beneficial ownership and let me say that the expression "beneficial ownership" is not mentioned in any one of the amendments before the House.

Deputy Flanagan made some suggestion that whatever I said was in some way derogatory towards the firm of Messrs. Guinness. I merely took Messrs. Guinness as an example of what would happen if the Deputy's amendments were accepted by this House and became law. I gave them as an example when amendments were being discussed to the Private Members' Bill introduced by the Deputy's Party away back in 1961. These are just lifted, as I have already said, directly from that and put down as amendments to this Land Bill.

At that time, I said, at column 1703, Volume 188, of the Official Report:—

Subsection (ii) (a) of section 4 provides that in every case the purchaser within paragraph (ii) of subsection (2) of section 3 of this Act must furnish to the Land Commission the names, addresses and nationality of every shareholder. Messrs. Arthur Guinness would, therefore, have to compile a list of their thousands of shareholders and furnish it to the Land Commission. If they had a subsidiary under subsection (3), they would have to furnish a list covering their subsidiary, too.

I said, further:

If there were 99 per cent of the equity, as Deputy Dillon calls it, held by Irish nationals and one per cent held outside, a list containing the name of every shareholder would have to be furnished in addition to all the other information provided for in section 4. That applies in the case of companies. In the case of individuals, an obligation would be imposed not alone on the purchaser but on the vendor to investigate the nationality of any and every purchaser. He would have to get his seed, breed and generation as far as nationality is concerned. If he failed to give this seven days' notice provided for in the Bill and if the transaction proved to be void, the purchaser would be entitled in equity to his money back and the duty would be on the vendor's solicitors to investigate nationality. The position would be that there could never be any finality, during our lifetime, at all events, to the closing of any sale. This Bill—let me stress the point—does not take any positive steps to deal with the problem as we see it. It does not deal with the pre-1947 company.

On these amendments everything I said on that section of that Bill is equally relevant and if, for any purpose, in this country, Messrs. Guinness had one foreign shareholder, under the provisions of these amendments here, the whole register of Guinness would have to be supplied to the Land Commission.

I gave that instance to show how unworkable these amendments are. It would appear that Deputy Flanagan did not go to the trouble of reading the debates on their own Bill which was discussed in 1961 or, otherwise, he might at least have tried to cure the sections he has put down in the form of these amendments. The suggestions contained in these amendments are unnecessary, unworkable and will not in any way assist the work of the Land Commission or control the sale of Irish land to aliens.

As far as Deputy Flanagan is concerned, I must keep denying assertions that he makes here. It is all the same whether I inform him once that they are untrue or 100 times that they are untrue; he will still come back with them for the purpose of wasting time on this Bill. But let me repeat that an alien in this country cannot acquire citizenship within seven years—I think that is generally the period—and unless he becomes an Irish citizen, his child would not, by virtue of the fact of being born here, become an Irish citizen. Again let me assert that this allegation that children born here to aliens, people who are not citizens of this country, are used for the purpose of avoiding stamp duty, is a fairy tale. I do not accept it.

As far as the figures given in the register set up under the Finance Act, 1961, are concerned, these particulars are given separately in respect of each transaction by the Revenue Commissioners to the Land Commission who enter them in their register, who investigate them if they call for investigation. The Land Commission have their own way, and a far more efficient way, of investigating. They have a trained staff in every county for their purposes. The Land Commission officials will know and must know, because it is their job, more than anybody else as to what is happening as far as land is concerned. As rural Deputies well know, Land Commission officials in rural Ireland will be made aware very quickly of any purchases of land.

There are queues outside Land Commission offices of countrymen, certainly in any of the congested counties, asking the Land Commission, in some cases, to take over their neighbour's land, in some cases to take over land that is up for sale. There is very little happening, I would suggest to the House, as far as land is concerned in any parish in rural Ireland that is not brought in one way or another to the attention of the local Land Commission inspector.

In addition to this register, my indoor staff have a fairly ready way of getting a report or checking on any transaction that appears on the register or is reported to them. So that whatever estimates may have been made before that—and I gave details to the House in years gone by as to the kind of checks that were made— we have here, under the law as enacted by this House, since the Finance Act, 1961, an exact record of every acre of Irish land that is transferred to aliens, whether it be (1) in respect of which the 25 per cent stamp duty is paid, (2) if it is for industry or (3) if it is exempted under the sections that provide for exemption.

I should make it clear also, because the point was made by somebody, that a different section of the Finance Act, 1961 covers leasehold sales. Therefore, I assert that we now have, from the year 1961—and I will give the figures here and have given them several times—an exact record of the transfers that are taking place to aliens. Of course, I can see that if in any case there has been a fraud, it would not come on to the register but frauds have a knack of coming out at some stage or other. If there is any case in respect of which anybody has any suspicion that there has been a fraud or that stamp duty has been avoided by fraud, if the Land Commission are notified, they will very quickly have any such allegation investigated. It is their duty to do so. If it transpired that, due to fraud, stamp duty was avoided, all these penalties to which I have referred, in addition to the penal stamp duty that should be paid in these cases and whatever other penalties that might be provided by those concerned in the administration of the law, would come into operation.

Which, as I pointed out, is punishable.

I think the Minister condemns the present situation out of his own lips when he said that they heard of a case and that it is being investigated. I think nobody in the Land Commission has time to investigate specific cases and rumours that arise. They have to decide which is rumour and which is fact and, having done that, presumably they start, in the case of a company, by making a search in the Companies Office. Then they would get legal opinion on the matter and go into it. I know the format of these amendments might be an irritation to a large company such as the Minister mentions. They might have to give a full list of shareholders but these amendments mean that the evidence of the fraud would be delivered to the Land Commission before the fraud is perpetrated. As well as having the advantage of a proper register, any suspicion of fraud immediately places the officials in the Land Commission in the position of being able to take up the information sent in and ascertaining whether or not there has been a fraud. This seals up the case outlined by Deputy Sweetman. That is my view about it.

Mr. P. Hogan

Mr. S. Flanagan

Deputy M. J. O'Higgins mentioned my name during his remarks. I shall be very brief on this. I do not know how the Minister could have been any clearer in his reply on the subject of fraud. What Deputy O'Higgins mentioned, and what Deputy O.J. Flanagan failed or neglected to take notice of is that there may be a perfectly legitimate way of avoiding paying the 25 per cent stamp duty. If there is, I do not know it, but if Deputy O'Higgins says there is, I am prepared to accept that he knows what he is talking about. However, that has nothing whatever to do with fraud. As far as fraud is concerned, it has been dealt with very effectively time and time again.

If there is a method of avoiding this stamp duty, all that has to be done is to have an investigation into it and take whatever steps are necessary to seal off that avenue. That, I submit, just about finishes the discussion. Why Deputy O.J. Flanagan should have to drag in all sorts of irrelevancies about the legal profession and so forth, I do not know. It is not for me to answer on behalf of the Minister, but if Deputy Flanagan is not convinced now, he will never be convinced.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Deputy Seán Flanagan will appreciate that Deputy Oliver Flanagan's reference to the making of such provision here is in every way laudatory.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I accept that, but he was confusing two things.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I should like to follow the point Deputy Seán Flanagan made. I do not want in any way to mislead him or the Minister. I do not know of any particular case in which the system I have in mind was utilised in a way which would abuse existing legislation. I believe there is a method which is, as I have said, perfectly legitimate, whereby the 25 per cent stamp duty rate can be avoided. As Deputy Seán Flanagan has pointed out, a certain amount of the discussion on this amendment has dealt with the value from our point of view, or otherwise from the Minister's point of view, of the amendment in cases of fraudulent intent where an effort is made to defraud the Revenue.

Deputy Seán Flanagan is quite right in pointing out that if there is a legitimate way of avoiding the 25 per cent duty which is not captured by the 1961 Finance Act, then a different field is opened and a different argument develops on this amendment. I do not want to detain the House but I would suggest that the Minister assume with me for the moment that I am right and that such a legitimate method does exist of avoiding the provisions of the 1961 Finance Act. Assuming that to be the case, will the Minister concede that then there is value in the amendment tabled by Deputy Oliver Flanagan, if he disregards completely the question of fraud?

It may be too big an assumption to ask the Minister to make, but if he assumes that the machinery set up by the 1961 Finance Act does not capture all of the cases, does not require application to be made to the Land Commission in all of these cases, then surely there would be value in this amendment, which provides for an additional requirement whereby a register will be maintained in the Land Commission and whereby anyone who is not an Irish citizen will be required to appear in that register in relation to the purchase of property to which the Act relates? I would ask the Minister to give the amendment consideration from that point of view.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Can the Minister say that what he has said to the effect that there has been a register in the Land Commission since 1961——

Mr. Moran

That is untrue; that is incorrect. I have given particulars of the register year after year.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It was in 1961 that Deputy Dillon brought in his Private Members' Bill.

Mr. S. Flanagan

What in the world has that got to do with it?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is entirely irrelevant.

Mr. Ryan

The need for a register has been established by reason of the repeated admissions by the Minister for Finance that various methods of avoiding the stamp duty have escaped his attention, and his repeated declarations, when these matters were brought to his attention, of his intention to examine them and close the loopholes referred to by Deputy Seán Flanagan. What we appear to have overlooked is that there is no limit to the loopholes any more than there are limits to the ingenuity of man. The more a person has to gain by avoiding the tax, the more likely is he to pay people to find some way of avoiding payment of the tax.

It is imperative in the national interest that we know the extent of it as soon as any of these events happen. We know from practice that what has been happening in the past is this: Perhaps for a year or more some loophole is availed of but it is only when that reaches flood proportions that the matter is brought to the attention of some Deputy, who raises it with the Minister for Finance, who states he does not know anything about it but that he will have some inquiry made. Then you have a further 12 months' or a couple of years' delay before that flood-gate is closed. On that account I would ask the Minister to be more sympathetic to the idea and objective we have in mind.

Mr. Moran

I do not propose for the delectation of Deputy Ryan and Deputy O'Higgins, who have strolled into the House in the past ten minutes for the purpose of having their lunch, to go over the particular register in the Land Commission dealing with these issues since 1961. Deputy O'Higgins was not here when his colleague, Deputy Sweetman, spoke. It was he who alleged there were disreputable solicitors who were prepared to commit fraud for the purpose of avoiding the provisions of the Finance Act, 1961. It was not I. Certainly, Deputy Sweetman, who is also in practice like Deputy O'Higgins, did not suggest there was any legal way of avoiding the provisions of the Finance Act, 1961, in respect of the 25 per cent stamp duty. I have already repeated that I do not know of any way, nor has any legitimate way come to my attention or to the attention of those under my control.

Deputy O'Higgins suggested he has heard there is a way, although he did not know that it was ever used. He said he would tell us later on. He mentioned the word "lease"—that land could be leased. Strange to say, my colleague, Deputy Flanagan, has not heard of any legitimate way either of getting around the provision in terrorem of the Finance Act, 1961. I am not so long away from my practice not to remember this: if the method Deputy O'Higgins suggests is some form of lease of land, the leasing of land for a period of more than a year is voided under existing law. If it is some device by form of lease, as far as agricultural land is concerned, it would work to avoid the existing law.

At all events, if anybody from any side of the House can give me any evidence of any case in which he says a gap has been found in the law provided under the Finance Act, 1961, I will of course deal with the matter forthwith; but there is no evidence, nor has any evidence been brought before me, that such a loophole exists, and no evidence has come to the notice of my officials or of the Revenue Commissioners, so far. I concede what Deputy Ryan says. I never underestimate man's ingenuity, and particularly lawyer's ingenuity, in trying to get round provisions of this kind. The fact remains, however, that, so far, no way we know of has been found.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 55.

Tá

Barry, Anthony.
Barry, Richard.
Belton, Paddy.
Browne, Michael.
Burton, Philip.
Byrne, Patrick.
Clinton, Mark A.
Connor, Patrick.
Coogan, Fintan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan D.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Henry P.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donegan, Patrick S.
Dunne, Thomas.
Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
Farrelly, Denis.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Governey, Desmond.
Harte, Patrick D.
Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
Jones, Denis F.
Lynch, Thaddeus.
MacEoin, Seán.
McLaughlin, Joseph.
Murphy, William.
O'Donnell, Patrick.
O'Donnell, Thomas G.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Keeffe, James.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Reynolds, Patrick J.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Ryan, Richie.
Sweetman, Gerard.

Níl

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Lorcan.
Bartley, Gerald.
Blaney, Neil T.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Boyland, Terence.
Brady, Philip A.
Brennan, Joseph.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carter, Frank.
Childers, Erskine.
Clohessy. Patrick.
Colley, George.
Corry, Martin J.
Crinion, Brendan.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cummins, Patrick J.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Mick.
de Valera, Vivion.
Dolan, Séamus.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Padraig.
Flanagan, Seán.
Gallagher, James.
Galvin, Sheila.
Gibbons, James M.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Hillery, Patrick.
Hilliard, Michael.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lalor, Patrick J.
Lemass, Seán.
Lenihan, Brian.
Lynch, Celia.
MacCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Meaney, Con.
Medlar, Martin.
Millar, Anthony G.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moran, Michael.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Connor, Timothy.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Ryan, James.
Smith, Patrick.

Tellers: Tá: Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty: Níl: Deputies Mrs. Lynch and J. Brennan.

Question declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

This decision covers amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 which were discussed with amendment No. 3.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 5 Mar 1964

Land Bill, 1963—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Mr. Ryan

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Mar 1964