Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 May 1964

Vol. 209 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Land Bill, 1963—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

To add to the section a new subsection as follows:

"( ) All land which has been sold within the eighteen months preceding the coming into operation of this Act shall be inspected by the Land Commission with a view to acquisition."

—(Deputy Tully).

Mr. Tully

Last night I was suggesting to the Minister that if he were prepared to agree to have another look at this amendment, he might in some way meet our wishes. We do not want to make the position impossible because I quite agree that if the Bill were passed now, there might be extreme difficulty in going back for 18 months to find out who bought or sold land. However, in view of the fact that the Bill is making such slow progress through the House, if the Minister started making a list of purchases or sales of lands now, he might have it up to date by the time the Bill became law.

In any event, the Minister himself might possibly consider amending the section. If he is prepared to state that the Land Commission have the right to put a stay on attempted sales until they inspect the land, then he should be with us in the principle that in regard to sales which have taken place, many of them, if you like, shotgun sales that took place as soon as the people who owned the land found the Land Commission were interested in the land, the Land Commission should have the option of acquiring these farms.

A difficulty I see in this regard is that, even though the Minister would have the right to do this, it may happen that aliens, in particular, who come to this country, and purchase land which was being badly used, by carrying out a certain amount of activity, may be able to make a strong case to the Minister why he should not acquire the land, whereas the section gives him the right to look at the land and put the matter back for 18 months or for some other period. Perhaps the matter could be settled in that way. Anyway I do not intend to press the amendment, if the Minister is not prepared to accept it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I certainly could not support this amendment because it would not be right or proper for the Land Commission to interfere with genuine sales of land that have taken place. Where it has been established that congestion existed or where a farm had been sold which had been on the records of the Land Commission for division, in the event of the sale taking place within a period of 12 or 18 months, most certainly it would be right for the Land Commission to investigate the merits of the case which the local applicants had made in regard to the acquisition and division of such a farm, provided the Minister was satisfied that the area could be described and scheduled as a congested district. However, I should be very slow, and I hope the Minister will be slow, to instruct the Land Commission to investigate the many sales of land which have taken place where there is no question of land agitation.

Many small and other holdings have exchanged hands and the sales took place simply because the owner was retiring from farming or the owner died, or some other reason was involved. It would be wrong, in the absence of agitation for the division of land, to have such land inspected, and if such land were inspected, it would immediately reduce the value of land on the public market. The result would be a very serious financial loss for the vendor. The less interference the State has with property the better.

I am surprised at a man of the experience and intelligence of Deputy Tully asking the Minister to accept an amendment such as this, and I am glad that, after consideration, he has agreed to withdraw it. I certainly feel more happy about the situation since he has indicated his intention to withdraw it. There are many instances where holdings which are already on the records of the Land Commission and under consideration for acquisition have changed hands. In those cases I am certainly with Deputy Tully but the amendment to which he has just spoken does not cover those. As the amendment stands, I could not subscribe to it, but I should be very glad to hear the Minister express an opinion on this matter.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Moran)

I have much sympathy with the object behind this amendment and share the view which was undoubtedly in the drafters' minds when this amendment was put down. However, it would be impracticable to give effect to it. It is true that a number of sales have taken place in anticipation of this Bill, that a number of people have jumped the gun to deprive the Land Commission of lands in which they knew the Land Commission were interested and which were on the Land Commission records. That is one matter, but it is quite a different thing to write into the Statute Book that the Land Commission must investigate every single sale that has taken place in the past 18 months. It would be impossible to do that and in cases in which the Land Commission were not interested, cases which were not on the Land Commission register of absentee owners, it would be unjustifiable to investigate these.

When this Bill becomes law, those blatant cases that were on the Land Commission's books can be reconsidered and the situation assessed then. It may be possible to have a limited look at those that were on the Land Commission's records over a number of years. If there is a practical way of doing that, I can assure the Deputy I shall look into it between now and the final Stages of the Bill.

Mr. Tully

I am grateful to the Minister, but perhaps he is giving a different interpretation to the words "shall be inspected by the Land Commission" in the amendment. It all depends on what "inspection" means. The Minister is well aware that some of the inspections of the Land Commission are simply inspections from a Dublin office. Nobody goes walking the land with a stick to find out what type of land it is. Perhaps the Minister is taking a different view from that which we intended. However, I am always happy to make Deputy O. Flanagan happy and, therefore, I do not intend to pursue this matter. Nevertheless, it is wrong we should suggest that the only land in which the Land Commission should be interested is land about which there is agitation. If that were to be the case, then local people would be agitating and, as I have often complained, the migrants would take over. The question of agitation should not come into this at all. Either the land should be taken by the Land Commission and they should get all the power they need to do it, or they should not take it, and then there should be no undue interference. I am glad the Minister has assured me this matter can be dealt with in some other way, and I accept that assurance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Ceann Comhairle

There are two amendments, amendment No. 33 and one on the White Paper, No. 33 (a). They are both limited amendments and I think they could be discussed together.

Mr. Tully

I bow to your ruling, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not ruling; I am suggesting that they are limited amendments and could possibly be discussed together.

Mr. Tully

I do not understand No. 33 (a) and therefore I am not competent to express an opinion on it.

Mr. Moran

Neither am I.

Mr. Tully

I shall move amendment No. 33.

An Ceann Comhairle

Very well.

Mr. Tully

I move amendment No. 33:

To add to the section a new subsection as follows:

"() No person or trust shall be permitted to purchase more than one hundred and fifty statute acres of arable land after the passing of this Act. Non-nationals shall not be permitted to purchase more than ten statute acres of arable land except for industrial purposes."

We are told that this section is a very drastic section which will have a very big effect on the farmers but I should like to put a few facts before the House. The Minister has said again and again that at the present time 45 acres of mixed land is a viable farm. I like that word. If 45 acres is a viable farm, is there any good reason why somebody who has 150 acres should be entitled to buy up more land? That is what is happening.

We find that while the Land Commission and the Minister are complaining that the pool of land available for acquisition is becoming smaller every year, nevertheless, individuals are being allowed to buy up land that comes on the market, thereby making the amount of land available for acquisition smaller. That kind of thing is an inroad on the pool of land available and should be stopped and stopped now. Any man with 150 acres of land should be able to live on it and rear his family on it. We have been used to the idea that anything from 15 to 30 acres of good land is a farm and in my constituency there are hundreds of migrants making an excellent living on farms of 15 to 30 and 35 acres. It all depends on the type of farmer you are and the type of land you are farming. There is no suggestion in this amendment that we should interfere with the ownership of land already in the possession of any individual.

The second part of the amendment deals with non-nationals. At one time the Minister said that the question of the purchase of land by non-nationals was not a matter of grave importance. However, gradually the tone changed and bit by bit it was admitted that for every five acres of land acquired by the Land Commission a non-national purchases one acre. In that way, the pool of land available for acquisition and to give land to our own people is being further reduced by people who have no right whatever to acquire such land.

Last night, I heard the Minister become quite annoyed with somebody who made the suggestion that non-nationals should not be allowed to acquire land in this country and he said that Irish nationals would be allowed to acquire land in Britain or America. But he did not go on to deal with the continent of Europe and say what would happen if Irish people went to buy land in Holland, Belgium, France or Germany. He did not say what land Irish people could acquire in these countries. There has been a lot of talk about what would happen if we joined EEC but the Minister did not tell us what land we could acquire in these countries or what qualifications we would need before we could get even one acre.

The reason the purchase of land by non-nationals in this country is limited to ten acres in the amendment is that we have a number of big estates and the Land Commission find, when such an estate is acquired, that there is usually a big house on it which is very little use to anybody. There was a time when certain religious orders were prepared to take possession of these houses but the supply of such orders seems to have run out and there is nothing the Land Commission can do except demolish the house. Our suggestion is that if non-nationals want to live in Ireland, let them buy these houses and have with them ten acres of parkland but no more.

That would solve the problem of the Land Commission with regard to the houses and it would also solve the problem of the acquisition of big estates by people who have no right to purchase such land while we have people hungry for land and able and willing to work it. All the available land that can be taken without hardship from the people who are in possession of it should be so taken and given to the people who need it immediately. It should not be allowed to pass to aliens who come in here and who, even if they leave it there for only a few years, come back and hope to sell it at a substantial profit to someone from their own countries who wants to have a gamble.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I do not agree with the first part of the amendment. I do not think it is right that the State should intervene to restrict the amount of property which any person should have. If we have reached the stage in this country when the State can decide that a person may own only 150 acres of land, we may soon reach the stage when we will take steps to limit the amount of money a person may have on deposit in his bank or to limit the amount of housing accommodation a family may have. This is a dangerous step, and I hope the Minister and the House will reject the principle of restriction on the amount of property which a person may or may not hold.

It is wrong, and very wrong, that the right of any individual to purchase or maintain any property, land or otherwise, should be restricted. If a person buys a substantial holding, whether it be 150, 80, or 400 acres, and pays for it, if he is a good citizen and works that land so that it will produce food for man and beast, if he gives good employment on it, the State should be very slow to intervene. Any action by the State to restrict the amount of property a person may own should be seriously contested. There is Civil Service and State interference which is inclined to handcuff and blindfold the individual. Soon the stage will be reached when one will have to get permission to breathe.

In this country the principle has been maintained that the individual has a right to purchase what he wishes. I would urge that that principle be maintained, more particularly when I see that no person or trust shall be permitted to purchase more than 150 statute acres of arable land.

What would happen in the case of a college or community requiring a substantial acreage of land for the maintenance of the community? There might be a case where a religious community would wish to purchase arable land to the extent of 200 acres. There are holdings of more than 150 acres which are held by farmers who may have three or four or five sons, who work the land well, who bought the property with hard-earned money, who are not under any compliment to the State, to their neighbours or to any individual. There are religious communities who have very large tracts of land which is being worked well.

It would be a great pity if steps were taken to restrict the rights of colleges, religious communities or anybody else in the acreage of land which they can own. One might as well set out to limit a man's income, to limit what he can earn, what he can spend, what he can save, what he can own. I hope that tendency will not be allowed to develop here. The tendency is for the State to restrict the individual.

In every democracy, the individual has rights and Parliament should protect and safeguard those rights. It would be wrong for us here to limit the amount of land a person may purchase. I would raise the same opposition to the proposal, irrespective of what limit Deputy Tully or the Labour Party would put. The amount of property which a person, a trust or a community may purchase should be left as a matter for themselves and should not be subject to restriction.

I now come to the next part of the amendment which says that non-nationals should not be permitted to purchase more than ten statute acres of arable land, except for industrial purposes. I am with the Labour Party on that to a certain extent. I am reminded of the very praiseworthy and good advice which the late German Ambassador to this country gave to his countrymen in his own country on the subject of the purchase of land in this country by Germans. The advice was not to purchase arable land in this country, that it would not be wise for them to do so, that it would not be in their own interests. Naturally, we always welcome foreign investment in this country. We welcome foreign industrialists and anyone who is coming here to carry out a scheme of development or to establish industry. This Party and any other Party would not oppose any foreigner coming in here for the purpose of purchasing industrial sites. That is why I am glad to see mention in the amendment of land for industrial purposes.

The advice I have quoted was good advice given by the German Ambassador to his own people. He knew that we have not sufficient land to meet the needs of the Irish people who are seeking that land. The German Ambassador was fully aware of the serious implications of aliens purchasing large tracts of land in this country. He knew that they would be bound to meet with a certain amount of disapproval. Neither the Land Commission nor the Minister for Lands today knows the seriousness of the problem that prevails at this very moment in regard to the purchase of Irish land by aliens.

I have viewed this Bill with great suspicion because in this Bill as circulated, there is not a single section that curtails or restricts the activities of aliens in the purchase of land. It is suggested that the 25 per cent tax payable by an alien in respect of the purchase of property here will curb the activities of such people in respect of land purchase. That is all nonsense. Even with the 25 per cent duty payable by aliens the land is still far cheaper here than it would be in their country of origin. Foreigners are coming here to buy large tracts of arable land to the dotriment of local smallholders and in many cases they have successfully wiped the eye of the Land Commission and in many cases where it can be established that there is a serious problem of congestion, lands were purchased by aliens.

On numerous occasions we have heard from the Minister for Lands that foreigners coming here to buy land were buying land which was of too poor quality for the Land Commission or forestry purposes, but when we get down to the statistics submitted to all Deputies by the NFA, which examined the problem, we find that there were large tracts of good arable land in the heart of the country that were purchased by aliens and the Land Commission not only turned the deaf ear but the blind eye to the local people and the people in the congested areas, who were anxious to obtain additions to their holdings, to the farmers' sons who were well prepared financially to work the land, if only they could get it.

I have no hesitation in saying that a little interference on the part of the State and on the part of the Department of Local Government would ensure that the principle enunciated by James Fintan Lalor was carried out, the principle of the land of Ireland for the people of Ireland, to have and to hold from God alone who made it.

The stage is being reached where there is a new invasion of this country by foreign landlords. There are foreigners coming in here and buying up good arable land, land adjacent to good fisheries, where there are entrances and rights of way to the seashore. Such a practice is wrong and should not be tolerated. If anybody has a claim on the land of this country, it is the Irish people. There is nothing in this Bill to ensure that the land of this country will be held for the people of this country. That is why I think that the least this amendment does is to give us an opportunity of expressing our disapproval of the manner in which the Government have allowed foreigners to come over here and buy up good land while the cream of Irish manhood is forced to emigrate to the US, Canada or Great Britain. Many of them are farmers' sons, born and reared on the land. Many of them have their names on the files of the Land Commission seeking additions to the small holdings from which they have emigrated.

All that is to the discredit of the Land Commission. It is something of which the Minister should take a serious view. For some reason, however, he always maintains that this problem is not a very serious one. No case has been established to bear out the Minister's statement that the land being purchased by these foreigners is the poorest quality land. They have purchased land in Meath, Laois, Offaly, Westmeath, Kilkenny and Tipperary. They have purchased large tracts of good land all over the country. The Minister knows the number of places in my constituency. He is negotiating there to purchase from a German a very extensive tract of land in an area of South Laois and North Kilkenny where there is very serious congestion. There should be some restriction in regard to the purchase of lands by aliens.

I do not subscribe to the first part of this amendment. I think it would be wrong to limit the amount of property any person should hold. If that were done, it would deprive a citizen of his right to enjoy the freedom to which he is entitled in a democracy. If he is a good citizen, if he has his own money and is prepared to pay for the property, and if he is working his land well, it would be wrong for the State to interfere in respect of the amount of property he can purchase.

Mr. Moran

I cannot accept this limiting amendment. Generally speaking, it would be both undesirable and unworkable. Acreage limitation unrelated to the user of land would be most undesirable. We all know one man may hold 500 acres and secure such production and provide such employment that he is an asset to the district and the nation, whereas another man with only 50 acres may be using it so badly that he is a disgrace to the community.

In any event, it would not be practicable to enforce a limit of this kind, even if we had it. For instance, if a man has 150 acres, assuming his wife and his children could have another 150 acres or other areas of land, he could form a family company of as many of them as he wishes and they would each be individuals in law. You could not possibly enforce a limit of that kind. As Deputies will realise when they think on this matter, the quality of land varies so much that it would be impossible to lay down a limit of 50 acres, 100 acres or 200 acres. I cited a case here on my Estimate of an individual who had bought a holding in my county—I forget whether it was 5,000 or 7,000 acres— the valuation of which was 2d. per acre. That is an indication of where one might get by putting on a limitation, because nobody could live on this huge tract of snipe grass. I suggest to Deputies that even on the question of the varying quality of land, to lay down a limit would be completely impracticable.

Absenteeism is a more common feature than large-scale purchasing. The Bill deals with absenteeism in sections 34 and 41, which have yet to be dealt with. That would also deal with the type of case to which Deputy Tully referred—if not on this section, then in a previous debate in the House —of aliens not living in this country who bought lands here and let them to other people. There are sections in this Bill to deal effectively with that situation.

I believe that in any country the rationing of land would be only a last resort. The Government must follow the positive course of taking up vacant and underworked land before contemplating such a negative policy, and I would regard rationing as a negative policy. For all these reasons, apart from the other reasons advanced by Deputy Flanagan, in my view any limitation of the size of holdings would be impracticable.

It was stated that the Land Commission pulled down the big houses on estates. That is not so. Indeed, we have some recent experiences of large residences of the type referred to by Deputy Tully. We find a ready market for them for the purpose of conversion into hotels and so on. There are a couple on the Land Commission books at the moment, and there are many inquiries for them. By no means does it happen in all cases that the residence is pulled down and sold for scrap value, as suggested by Deputy Tully.

Returning to the question of laying down a hard and fast rule of 150 acres for a holding, I should like to remind Deputies thinking that way that you cannot have such a national pattern in this country. There are different types of agricultural economies in different parts of the country. Indeed, a number of these larger farms in the midlands form the market for the small stores from the west of Ireland. This pattern has been followed traditionally down through the years. Even from the point of view of farm structure and agricultural economics, you cannot divide the whole country into units like a draught board with no unit bigger than 150 acres. I think I have made it clear that this would be an impracticable proposition.

When I come to the second leg of this amendment, which purports to deal with purchases by aliens, I suggest again this is not a practical way of dealing with what the Deputy fears. There are ways and means of dealing with the matter if the problem becomes sufficiently big to justify steps being taken. It is nothing like a national problem now. We have the exact figures for alien purchases. I have given the figures from time to time here. We know exactly where we stand.

Our people who emigrate, mainly to Britain and the United States of America, are quite free to purchase land in these countries. There is no law against such purchases. Some Deputies—Deputy Tully was one— threw in Holland, Belgium, France and Germany. I should like some of those who were so vocal about the laws in other countries to indicate to me what particular limitations exist. I have made careful inquiry and I have discovered that the laws vary very much. In many instances, although there are some regulations to control alien purchases, it was found impracticable to exercise that control, despite the fact that the problem was, unlike ours, a national one. In some of these countries, aliens are entitled, subject to certain qualifications, to acquire land and property.

The number of Germans coming in here is infinitesimal. The arguments made here remind me of the story of someone who walked down a street in Manchester and reported that the whole of Manchester was inhabited by Jewish people. There are some who, if they see a couple of foreigners, or read of a couple of purchases, immediately jump to the conclusion that there is a German invasion. That is not the case.

Deputy Flanagan waxed eloquent about the new invasion. May I remind him of the attitude taken by his own Party when they were in Government? Deputy McQuillan tabled a Bill on this issue. That Bill was opposed, and defeated, by Deputy Flanagan's Party and the then Coalition Government, on the ground that the figures for land purchases by aliens were running—I am speaking from recollection—from 5,000 to 7,000 acres per year. I forget how many hundreds of years it would take, on the basis of that figure, for such purchases to make any real impact on the land of Ireland. It was pointed out, of course, that we have 12 million acres of arable land.

Whatever criticism might be offered as to the inaccuracy of the figures at that time, or as to lack of knowledge of the extent of the problem, no criticism can be made now, since we know every foot of land sold to an alien as a result of the Finance Act of 1961. The register is kept. The average figure for sales in respect of which the 25 per cent penal stamp duty has been paid runs at approximately 7,000 per year. Some of the sales take place between the aliens themselves; some are sales of land in which the Land Commission are not interested. We know exactly the size of the problem. If the figures take a sudden upward trend, it will be a very easy matter to deal with.

This section will enable the Land Commission to move quickly in appropriate cases. It can be used to deal with the land required by the Land Commission for the relief of congestion. Deputy Flanagan continues to misquote me, apparently in the hope that, if he misquotes often enough, someone will swallow it. I never said all the land purchased by aliens was land that would be useless to the Land Commission. I said a number of these purchases were what we would regard as "white elephants"

General MacEoin

Let us hope not.

Mr. Moran

I have never denied that some of these purchases were of good agricultural land. I merely pointed out that it is fallacious reasoning to take the figure of purchases provided by our register, as Deputy McQuillan did, and assert that there were so many 50 acre holdings in the 7,000 acres which would cater for so many families, if the lands were acquired and divided. It was being assumed that all these people bought the very best land and none of the other type. They have bought any amount of the other type. They have bought land our people were not interested in and it has come to our notice that some of these got their fingers burnt and are trying to get others to take over their liabilities.

We know the extent of the problem. An amendment confining purchases by aliens to ten acres would be impracticable. It would also prevent these people purchasing the "white elephants" the Land Commission do not require. It would be an undue discrimination against some of these people. If the figures at any time show an upward trend or indicate a threat nationally, it will be very easy to deal with the problem.

I do not accept the argument that a 25 per cent penal duty is not a substantial one. It is, of course—and a very substantial one. If, in competition on the Irish market, some individual has to pay 25 per cent more for any portion of land or buys land for a substantial amount of money and has to pay 25 per cent more for it than his Irish competitor would, it is quite a hefty penalty. Anybody who is familiar with land sales realises that. Of course, this figure of 25 per cent could, if thought nationally desirable, be increased at any time. But whatever method might be thought necessary from a national point of view to deal with a problem of this kind, if it did arise, I suggest that this ten-acre limitation would not be the way of going about it. For all these reasons, I must refuse to accept this amendment. I think both legs of this amendment, if I may so describe it, are unworkable and I must reject it.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Incidental to the Minister's statement, I should like clarification on one point regarding the purchase of land by foreigners. In the Skibbereen area of Country Cork, a foreign group purchased a substantial acreage of land, a very big farm, some years ago for industrial development. Everyone was very pleased at the time that this group came along to buy a farm for industrial development and to give substantial employment in the area. However, when the farm was bought, this industrial project—if it ever existed—fell through and the land is now in the ownership of these people. In such circumstances, in view of the Minister's statement, could the Land Commission then step in and, say, re-purchase a holding and divide it amongst congests in the locality? In this case, it was a question of the best land in the area and undoubtedly there was a plentiful supply of local people to avail of that land if it had been purchased in the first instance by the Land Commission. I should like the Minister to clarify that matter now.

Mr. Clinton

I fail to understand the thirst for power that seems to exist in the Land Commission at the present time. In an effort to find out the reason for section 13, I should like to examine the explanatory memorandum on the section.

Mr. Moran

We are not on section 13.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are discussing amendment No. 33, in the names of Deputies of the Labour Party.

Mr. Clinton

I hope to say something on the Labour Party amendment. The discussion to which I listened from the Minister's side was so broad that I thought it included the section as well. The Labour Party amendment seeks to confine the amount of land that may be purchased by Irish nationals to 150 acres and, in the case of aliens, to ten acres.

I think there is a way to treat aliens and we do not seem to want to use it. Either we should accept that aliens are free to come in here and to buy land or that they are not. If we are afraid, and we appear to be afraid in section 13, we should debar them outright. We should not seek measures, when they have got the land, to take it back from them. We should not seek to put these people in the position where they can come in here and buy land freely and pay 25 per cent more for it and break no law in the country and that then we move in and compel them to go to court and to make a case for compensation when the Land Commission acquire it.

I think that the idea of free sale was very valuable. If we chop up holdings—and that is what this means— it will prove to be a mistake. If we can sell only 150 acres of any holding or if a person can buy only 150 acres, so that the holding must be split up, it will be an unwise step. Take a holding of 200 acres. Surely it is not a practical suggestion that that holding must be split up prior to selling it? Normally, there is only one dwellinghouse and one farmyard and very often that will reduce considerably the value of a holding.

One could have a farm of 400 acres of bad land and it would take the 400 acres to give a living to a family. The question of mountain land, bogland, and so on, comes into it. I would prevent aliens from buying land at all except for an industrial site. That is my evaluation of it. What is the purpose of confining it to ten acres? An alien could come in here and have 10 acres for a hobby and it could be ten acres of waste because there is a nice dwellinghouse on it. I do not think the amendment is practical. I do not know why we are talking so much about keeping aliens out if we are just dealing with the question of 10 acres. I think ten acres is really only an industrial site and we want them for industry. After that, they should be kept out altogether.

Mr. Tully

I was amused by the efforts of Deputy Flanagan to get the cloak of all religious orders in the country not alone around himself and the Fine Gael Party but around the Fianna Fáil Party as well. It was a great effort. If that can be used as an argument against our amendment, then I suggest he is perfectly entitled to try to use it. For the life of me, I cannot see its relevance. In fact, the amendment says "150 acres of arable land".

I know quite a number of religious orders who have bought houses and farms in my constituency. None of them has been rich enough to go over the 150 acres. Most of them are very glad to be able to get farms of well under 100 acres. I know that on occasion the Land Commission have given farms of 150 acres to favoured individuals but that is not the normal thing. The whole argument being made against the amendment, in my opinion, does not ring true. Perhaps, if it does nothing else, the amendment shows clearer than anything else the different outlook the members of the Labour Party have on this particular problem from that of the combined Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Parties. We believe that if somebody acquires or buys 150 acres of arable land, he is buying a very sizable farm. I was rather disappointed that neither the Minister nor Deputy Clinton seemed to appreciate the fact that the amendment refers to arable land, and land on which you cannot feed snipe does not come into it.

Mr. Clinton

How do you define arable land?

Mr. Tully

I am sure the Deputy can define it better than anybody, better even than the Minister. Deputy Flanagan quoted James Fintan Lalor's "the land of Ireland for the people of Ireland". Apparently he added a mental note, making it "the land of Ireland for the rich people of Ireland", because the man who is able to buy more than 150 acres of arable land at present must be a very rich man. Deputy Clinton inquired as to what would happen in the case of a 200-acre farm if the owner could sell only 150 acres in one lot. He must have forgotten there would be one of the Minister's viable farms over, with some acres to spare, and I know many people who would be delighted to get a 50-acre farm, even if they had to buy it.

The Minister made a very serious mistake when he alleged on two occasions that I said the big houses on the farms taken over by the Land Commission were being pulled down and sold for scrap. I said no such thing. What I said was that up to recently the religious orders had been taking these houses and that we seemed to have run out of orders and that the houses were an embarrassment to the Land Commission, that it was necessary to give far more land than the Commission have available with those houses in order to get people to take them. Perhaps the Minister expected me to say what he suggested I said but actually I did not say it.

I do not agree with the Minister about foreign purchasing being a small problem. Possibly the Minister comes from a part of the country where it may be a small problem but I come from another part where it is not a question of an odd German or Frenchman or a Belgian buying a farm. A very serious encroachment has been made in County Meath by those people. They may be excellent people, but as long as there are Irish people who could use that land, I do not believe foreigners should be allowed buy it.

The Minister asked somebody to tell him what is the situation in the countries I mentioned where I claimed there are restrictions against Irishmen buying farms. Nobody knows that as well as the Minister. When he was pressed here some time ago, he did give some of the restrictions. If he would prefer to have it that way, we can put down a Parliamentary Question asking him what are the restrictions. We would find that in most cases there are very severe restrictions. For instance, in Holland, not alone can foreigners not buy land but even a native must prove that he either has taken a degree in agriculture or is a practical farmer——

Mr. Moran

That is for land reclaimed from the polders.

Mr. Tully

It is for land over which the Government have control.

Mr. Moran

It is land which the Government have created.

Mr. Tully

It is land which they control and the Minister should be well aware of this. This is a situation where the Government can have control of certain lands and instead they say that the highest bidder can buy, no matter who it is. We believe, no matter who is concerned, he should not be allowed to buy more than 150 acres. If that is done, many problems about which we hear day after day will be solved.

Secondly, we believe that if an alien wants to buy a house for residential purposes, he should be entitled to ten acres of arable land but no more. If he is buying for industrial purposes, it is a different matter, but, like Deputy Murphy, I know of a number of farms that were bought for industrial purposes but which are being farmed only in a middling way ever since.

I suggest there is merit in the amendment and that the Minister should have another look at it because we should not allow the position to continue in which anybody can buy land at a time when—and this is becoming a serious menace—a man with a lot of money but no knowledge of farming who has a greed for land can buy up farm after farm in an area. That should not be allowed to continue. There is one way of stopping it and we make no apology for suggesting that it should be done, that is, to provide that the area of land which anyone can buy should be limited to an area of 150 acres of arable land.

Mr. Moran

Perhaps I misunderstood Deputy Tully about the large houses. I have had experience as Minister during the past couple of years, of at least one of these houses with which I am familiar and which was sold with some amenity lands, about which the Deputy is complaining, in order to sell it well. It was bought and converted into a hotel and is giving employment now to 40 or 50 people which is a tremendous boon to the district. Where things like that happen, it is a good thing that these large mansions should be sold with sufficient amenity land to make them a practical proposition.

Mr. Tully

Not more than 150 acres.

Mr. Moran

Some of the orders that have taken these places also provide local employment which is very welcome. There may be a number of such places in the Deputy's part of the country. After the operations of the Land Commission west of the Shannon over the past five or six years, very few of them are left there.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The operations of the Land Commission must be confined to west of the Shannon.

Mr. Moran

They do their share of work west of the Shannon and also in the Deputy's area.

In Holland, there is a rule or a law in respect of reclaimed land, land reclaimed by the Government at very high cost and, as far as I have studied it, I understand the people who get that land must not alone qualify as the Deputy has said, but must show they have sufficient capital to work it intensively and they must pay a full economic rent to the Government, having regard to the money spent on it. That is reclaimed land. It does not apply to land generally. To my own knowledge, there is a place in Holland that I knew of before I became a member of the Government, of more than 3,000 acres, operated and owned by a non-Dutch company and worked very intensively.

The suggestion seems to be generally accepted by a number of Deputies that in most continental countries, it is practically impossible for a non-national to acquire land. That is not necessarily the case. In the different cantons in Switzerland, you have different rules, and also in Germany, because there are different succession laws in many of these countries and these tie up the devolution of land in certain cases. Outside these, with certain restrictions, other people can acquire land in these countries.

Deputy Murphy raised the question of an alien—I do not know if he said a German or not—who acquired some land allegedly for industrial purposes in his part of the country. I think the best answer to the Deputy is to refer him to the Finance Act of 1961. Section 33, subsection (6) provides:

Where, subsection (5) of the 1947 section having not applied in the case of a conveyance or transfer of property because the case fell within subparagraph (i) of paragraph (c) of subsection (4) of that section, the property has been retained by the person to whom it was conveyed or transferred but has not been used for the purposes of an industry other than agriculture within three years from the date of the relevant instrument——

This is the type of property to which the Deputy referred, property which was alleged to have been bought for the purposes of industry but was not used for the purposes of industry within three years from the date on which it was purchased. This is the law that will apply:

(a) that instrument shall, notwithstanding that it has been stamped already, and irrespective of whether or not it has been stamped with a particular stamp denoting that it is duly stamped, again immediately become chargeable with stamp duty,

(b) that duty shall be chargeable at the rate of twenty-five pounds per cent on the amount or value of the consideration, due allowance being made for the amount of the stamp duty already paid,

(c) if, at the expiration of thirty days after the instrument becomes again chargeable with stamp duty, it is not stamped in accordance with the foregoing paragraph, a sum equal to twice the amount of the duty unpaid shall thereupon be a debt due to the Minister for Finance for the benefit of the Central Fund by the said person.

Subsection (7) (a) provides:

For the purposes of paragraph (c) of subsection (4) of the 1947 section, the Revenue Commissioners may require the delivery to them of statutory declarations in such form as they may direct and of such further evidence, if any, as they may require.

The position is that if an alien purchases land for the purposes of industry and does not proceed with that industry within three years, he becomes liable to the full penal duty, and on the expiration of a further 30 days, he becomes liable to estate duty by way of penalty. So far as the Land Commission are concerned, the ordinary law of the land would apply, and if the land is suitable for the relief of congestion, the Land Commission can move in on him. If this Bill goes through the House, the Land Commission will be better equipped to move in much more promptly in a case like that. What I have quoted for the Deputy is the law on the matter, and the person does not escape. If he does not proceed with the industry, he loses the exemption he received from stamp duty on the purchase of the land.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

In this instance, the land was for sale in the Skibbereen area and a foreigner came in and was made welcome by the local people because they thought he would be starting an industry almost immediately. Naturally the land was purchased at a depressed price, and if the 25 per cent had to be paid subsequently, it was still a very cheap farm. The Minister knows very well that in a congested district such as West Cork, if an alien comes in to buy a farm for industrial development, he will be welcome, and the people will help him in every way possible, and provide him with the land he needs at a reasonable price. If the industry falls through, or if he never had any intention of setting up an industry but wanted to acquire a good farm at a reasonable price, would it not be very good value, even if he had to pay an additional 25 per cent on the original price? In such a case, if they are satisfied that the purchaser of the land never had any intention of establishing an industry, the land should be open to acquisition by the Land Commission.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): I move amendment No. 33 (a):

To add to the section a new subsection as follows:—

Every purchase of an agricultural holding by an alien shall be subject to the consent of the Land Commission after inspection by the latter as to its suitability or otherwise for land division.

This does not cut across the purchase of land by aliens? It is merely an attempt to provide that our own people, and our own congests, have first choice and get first consideration. I think it would be appropriate that in any purchase of land by an alien, at the earliest possible opportunity the purchaser should know whether he was going to run into difficulties as regards the purchase of the land. Under this amendment, the land would be looked at by the Land Commission to see if it were suitable for division, and if there was a congestion problem in the area.

The Minister mentioned that land has been purchased on the continent and elsewhere. He said there is no restriction on land being purchased by Irish people in Britain, America, and on the continent. In actual practice, our people do not buy land in Britain, America, or on the continent. Our emigrants are poor people, and they are barely able to live. They go away to work. The majority of our emigrants are quite unable to buy land so that does not arise, whereas a number of aliens who come in here are wealthy, and they buy land merely as a hedge against inflation in many cases, or as an investment. I put down this amendment to protect our own people, and to give them first choice. It is a cause of annoyance and social unrest when people wake up in the morning in an area where there is congestion and find that a large estate has been bought overnight. It is to obviate conditions such as that that I put down this amendment.

This happens in my constituency, and, as I have said, we have as large a proportion of congestion in my constituency as other Deputies have in theirs. The Minister should accept this amendment.

Mr. Moran

First of all, for the record, it is quite obvious that the Deputy is not aware that some of our people do purchase land in the United States and it was my privilege to visit some of them in Colorado and Wyoming over the past ten years. They are quite free to do so, if they wish, and if they have the wherewithal, just as people are elsewhere, in Britain, for instance, if they desire. The Deputy is making the greatest mistake of his life if he suggests that all our people who go abroad are poor people. He should see some of them and compare them with the neighbours they left behind.

Coming to the amendment, I say seriously that I simply do not understand it. It says that:

Every purchase of an agricultural holding by an alien shall be subject to the consent of the Land Commission after inspection by the latter as to its suitability or otherwise for land division.

The alien is free to purchase the holding. I am trying to find out what the Deputy really has in mind. The Land Commission come along afterwards and inspect it for suitability. "Shall be subject to the consent of the Land Commission". I do not understand what he means. They inspect it for suitability or otherwise. If the Land Commission in their wisdom decide to inspect any holding owned by an alien or anybody else and if there is congestion in the vicinity, they are entitled to take it over, even under existing law. I just do not understand what the meaning of this amendment is. It is beyond my comprehension. That is all I can say about it.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

May I assist the Minister in this? This amendment specifically states that:

Every purchase of an agricultural holding by an alien shall be subject to the consent of the Land Commission after inspection by the latter as to its suitability or otherwise for land division.

The Minister will note carefully the words "every purchase of an agricultural holding by an alien". What this amendment purports to do is to differentiate in regard to the rights of a national. What we are defending on this side of the House is the right of the national to do what he likes with his land, provided he does not infringe the law or does not do anything contrary to the wellbeing of the State as a whole. This amendment relates to the alien and I ask the Minister to give it his consideration.

Recently I asked the Minister what was the number of aliens who had bought land over a certain period. In so far as one can in a Parliamentary Question, I tried to find out from the Minister how he knows whether aliens were buying land or not. I do not think there is any method by which we can know. What Deputy Hogan wants to do is to make it clear that an alien is placed in this category. We on this side do not accept that nationals should be regimented by the State, by the Land Commission, or by a Minister.

Mr. Moran

As I understand Deputy Esmonde, he wishes that in every sale of land, the Land Commission must give their consent and if he desires to put down an amendment to that effect, I will undoubtedly consider it, because if nobody can sell land without the consent of the Land Commission, then we must refuse it to the alien until we examine the position.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

The Minister has come a certain way with what I have tried to convey but I do not think he has fully understood. There must be a differential between the rights of aliens in relation to land and the rights of nationals. As I interpret Deputy Hogan's amendment, he wants to make it crystal clear that when an alien buys land, the Land Commission will know he is going to do so and can have the right to say whether it is reasonable or otherwise for him to buy the land. That is the whole point. We do not want a complete control over the sale of land as far as nationals are concerned. That is where we joined issue with the Minister last night and he told us we were obstructing. We were not; we were trying to defend the rights of nationals. Our Leader came in here last night and made that case clear, that we were standing up for what our people fought for for centuries. There is no point in having fixity of tenure or security for Irish nationals if foreigners can come in and buy land.

I want to take it further. Land here has gone for £250 per acre which is considered to be a high price but it is comparatively nothing by European or even British standards. You must deal with a situation in which the tendency is for people to invest more in fundamental securities such as land. You have many big industrialists, not only from the Federal Republic of Germany but from France, Italy and from different parts of Europe, and even people from America, wishing to do this. You have the great risk, as auctioneers will tell the Minister, of British nationals coming over to buy land because they feel there is going to be a Labour Government and they want to invest in securities somewhere else. That is the point of this amendment. It is very reasonable if the Minister looks into it and it covers a small section.

Mr. Moran

Does Deputy Hogan accept Deputy Esmonde's interpretation?

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): Yes; it is merely to——

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Minister is trying to be clever.

Mr. Moran

I am trying to——

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): It is not intended to prevent aliens from purchasing land, which seems to cause the Minister embarrassment——

Mr. Moran

It is not causing me embarrassment.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): I do not know what interest he has in foreigners buying land but it almost looks as if he has a vested interest in the matter. It is merely to ensure that foreigners coming in will know where they stand and will know beforehand if there is a local congestion problem in the area and that that problem will receive first consideration before they can get land. It is better to do that in the first instance rather than tell this to the alien afterwards or have local agitation in the area afterwards.

Mr. Moran

Let me shorten this discussion. The amendment says:

Every purchase of an agricultural holding by an alien shall be subject to the consent of the Land Commission after inspection by the latter as to its suitability or otherwise for land division.

Every purchase by an alien is a purchase, it is to be assumed, from an Irish citizen, and the Deputy may have something, and if the Deputy will put down an amendment that no sale of land by an Irish citizen can be made without the consent of the Land Commission, I shall consider it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Deputy is not asking for that.

Mr. Moran

Will the Deputy tell me how the Land Commission, except by divine inspiration, will know when an alien purchases land until he has purchased the land?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister should not try to twist the amendment in that way.

Mr. Tully

I said at the beginning, I did not understand the amendment. Having listened to at least two versions of it, I am more confused than I was at the beginning. If Deputy Esmonde, Deputy Hogan, or any other Deputy wants to bring in an amendment to prevent people who are prepared to rush out of England over here with a change of Government from so doing, I would go the whole way with him because we have enough of that sort here already.

From my remarks on a previous amendment, the Minister knows now that I am prepared to go to great lengths to prevent aliens purchasing arable land, but I agree with the Minister that the land must be purchased, and I can see a serious situation arising if somebody sells a farm to an alien and, as a result of that sale, gets about three times as much money as he would get from an Irish citizen. Would it not become a kind of a racket, this sale of land to aliens, the vendors knowing that the Land Commission would be likely to come in? Should we not find ourselves in a serious situation? If some clear-cut effort is made to prevent aliens purchasing arable land here, I am prepared to go the whole way, but I do not think this amendment will do that.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister is trying to confuse the issue and trying to twist and misrepresent the views and intentions of Deputy Hogan. The amendment is there in black and white. Is there anything clearer? It is indicated very clearly in Deputy Hogan's amendment——

Mr. Moran

It is as clear as mud to me.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I understand it very clearly; Deputy Hogan understands it; Deputy Esmonde understands it; and though Deputy Tully has doubts——

Mr. Tully

Tremendous doubts.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

——he is with us. I am quite satisfied that no matter what he may say, the Minister has no accurate statistics of the amount of land purchased here by aliens. The only information he can give us—he calls it reliable—is based on the Finance Act which gives details of the amount collected in 25 per cent duty paid by aliens who purchase land here, but that information does not tally with the amount of land purchased by aliens as given in the NFA survey. I put it to the Minister that the NFA have organised practically every parish, have set up sub-committees to deal with this matter. Therefore, they must know the position reasonably accurately.

The NFA circularised each parish in the country and in each parish information was collected based on the actual position as to the number of acres of arable land purchased by aliens. That was submitted to headquarters and accordingly the NFA were able to furnish details. The result of that survey has been referred to on many occasions in the House. The Minister got a copy and there is a copy in the Land Commission, covered with dust and cobwebs because nobody ever read it. If there is no register in the Land Commission of the arable holdings purchased by aliens, how is the Minister to know that a farm has been so purchased? The Minister's confusion, I notice, has been causing a certain amount of laughter from even the Fianna Fáil benches.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

They seem to be frightfully amused over there.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

With good reason. I know a man who purchased a holding in my constituency. His name was Professor Glenville Gascoigne. Would the Minister say he is a Corkman?

Mr. Moran

If he is prepared to live within 100 miles of the Deputy, he has a hard neck, anyhow.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): That is a stupid answer.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

This Bill is of fundamental importance to everybody in the country but apparently there is some regimented scheme whereby the Minister thinks everything said on this side is claptrap and nonsense. His colleagues in the back benches have been sneering and laughing at everything that has been said.

Mr. Moran

Is this a point of order?

Sir Anthony Esmonde

This is a most important Bill, the most important that has ever come before Dáil Éireann, and I suggest that if Fianna Fáil Deputies do not wish to contribute to the debate, they should clear out of the House and at least allow the Minister to listen to what we have to say. We should like to hear them speak instead of their sniggering and laughter. It makes Parliament look ridiculous.

Mr. Fanning

We do not want a lecture from Deputy Esmonde at all.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I have no doubt you do not but——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Esmonde is not adding to the order of the House.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Let them be silent and allow us to speak.

Mr. Fanning

We know more about land than you do.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I wonder.

Mr. Fanning

We certainly do.

An Ceann Comhairle

The knowledge of Deputy Esmonde or of Deputy Fanning is not in issue here. What is in issue is the amendment moved by Deputy Hogan.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister posed a question to us and in the course of doing so, he asked: "How am I to know when a farm is about to be purchased by an alien?" We want to enlighten the Minister as to how he will find out. He says he does not know.

Seán Ó Ceallaigh

Nár chuir sé aguisín leis?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister is bogged down and needs a little enlightenment. Deputy Hogan's amendment is crystal clear. All it seeks is that if a farm is about to be bought by an alien, the Land Commission's consent should be obtained, or refused. He also wants the farm inspected to see if it is suitable for acquisition and division among smallholders and congests for the relief of congestion. The Minister, however, says that is not possible. Why, I do not know.

The Minister goes on to say he has no way of finding out when a farm is about to be purchased by an alien. I have made it clear that the only way he has of finding out is through a system such as that suggested in the amendment. It is quite clear to us that at the moment there is no record in the Land Commission, that the Minister has no record, as to the acreage of land purchased by aliens. He goes on now to ask the House how he is to find out when an alien is about to purchase land so that he can give his permission or refuse it. Can the Minister not arrive at a position in which he can ask a prospective purchaser: "What is your name, your address; where do you come from?"

Mr. Moran

He is then the owner, of course.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

No, before he buys it. Deputy Hogan wants the holding inspected to see if it is suitable for division before the Land Commission give consent to buy it.

Mr. Moran

Consent to sell it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Now the Minister is trying to confuse the issue. Deputy Hogan says in his amendment: "Every purchase of an agricultural holding by an alien shall be subject to the consent of the Land Commission..." The Minister has ways and means of dealing with this matter. Surely the Minister knows that when a person goes to buy a holding, the conditions of sale are clearly read out by the solicitor or auctioneer, and then a quarter of the purchase money, together with five per cent auction fees, is placed as a deposit.

Mr. Moran

I know the Deputy knows the latter part anyway, about the five per cent.

Mr. Sweetman

I always make the auctioneer read out the conditions and I expect the auctioneer reads them better than I would.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It is important for the auctioneer to read out the conditions of sale. He certainly can key up his intended purchasers, put them into a mood——

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not arise on this amendment.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister wants ways and means to implement Deputy Hogan's amendment. From the time the purchaser places his deposit until the sale is closed is usually a period of a month to six weeks. What is there to stop the Land Commission, in the meantime, making inquiries from the solicitor acting on behalf of the purchaser as to where the purchaser came from, his name and address, his occupation, his purpose in purchasing the land, whether he has a good agricultural background——

Mr. Moran

The Deputy should try asking some solicitor that and see what answer he will get.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It is all very fine for an individual to address an inquiry to a solicitor. We are now dealing with the Land Commission, with the Government, asking for information.

Mr. Sweetman

The law.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Yes. The law is made by this House. What is there to stop the Land Commission, in accordance with an Act of this House, asking that this information be supplied by the purchaser?

Mr. Moran

May I point out there is nothing in this amendment about asking solicitors anything?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister invited any Deputy—and Deputy Esmonde can bear witness to it—to advise him as to how this could be done.

General MacEoin

He went further than that. He advised the Deputy to ask a solicitor and then he says it cannot be done.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I am telling the Minister how it can be done. If the purchaser is an alien, in accordance with Deputy Hogan's amendment the Minister can then instruct the Land Commission to carry out an inspection. If he is satisfied that there is congestion in the district, that is a case in which consent may be refused to the alien and the lands purchased for the relief of congestion in the area. There is nothing simpler or easier to implement than that.

I cannot understand why the Minister appears to be so dumb on this issue. He is a man of intelligence and is not alone a well-known member of the legal profession but has an outstanding record as a brilliant solicitor. Now that the Minister is in a happier and more pleasant mood, perhaps he can see the wisdom of Deputy Hogan's amendment and how it can be implemented. Not alone is this an amendment of common sense and intelligence but it is one which will curb considerably the purchase of land by aliens. Now that this has been clearly explained to the Minister, he should accept this amendment, thus enabling the Land Commission to say to a purchaser: "You may not complete this sale. In accordance with section 13 of the Land Act, 1963, the consent of the Land Commission is refused". Then the lands are inspected, found suitable for division, divided amongst the local people, and all is well. Can the Minister tell me what is wrong with that procedure?

I subscribe fully to the view already expressed by Deputy Clinton that the one way of dealing with the problem is to stop aliens from buying land here altogether because we have a greater demand by Irish people for land than there is land available for them. This problem will not be solved to the satisfaction of all concerned until steps are taken by the Government to stop the purchase of land by aliens except for industrial purposes to the extent of a nominal acreage which they require for those purposes. Deputy Hogan has performed a great service to the House and made a very generous contribution to this section by his amendment, and I hope the Minister will accept it.

Mr. Clinton

This is a very cleverly worded amendment in that it is a prohibition on the purchase of Irish land by aliens without calling it that. One of the main purposes of the section is to ensure that land is not snatched by aliens at prices which make it unavailable to nationals. This is one way of ensuring that no holding in which the Land Commission are interested will be sold without first being brought to the notice of the Land Commission, who would then have an opportunity of buying it and distributing it among people who need land badly. This is a very desirable amendment and I cannot see why the Minister is unwilling to accept it. It would solve many problems for him.

Mr. Moran

As this amendment reads, I am not surprised I am not the only person in the House at a complete loss to understand what is behind it. Deputy Flanagan knows quite well that if a farm is purchased, probably by a solicitor in trust on behalf of an alien, by the time that transaction comes on the Land Commission register the sale is closed; he has got his five per cent; the deeds are stamped; the alien has paid over his money and is in possession of the land. I repeat: how could the Land Commission know in respect of any holding, unless by divine inspiration, that it was the intention of any Irish farmer to sell his holding to an alien? That is what they would want to know to give effect to this amendment, that before the land is purchased, the Land Commission should know that X is about to sell his land to a foreigner so that they could then put a plaster on it.

There is only the one way to do that. It is not the alien you want to control in that case; it is the man who is selling the land you want to control. If the Deputy wants to put down an amendment on Report Stage prescribing that any man who wants to sell his land must first notify the Land Commission, then we can consider it. That is what I understood he was trying to get at because if this amendment does not mean the control of the sale of land, I do not know what it means. That is the only possible effect this amendment could have, that every purchase by an alien would require the consent of the Land Commission.

When an alien has purchased an agricultural holding in this country and that fact comes to the register, that sale has already taken place. The only way to achieve what the Deputy would appear to have in mind is to make all sales of land subject to the consent of the Land Commission. That is already the law with regard to subdivision of land. In that situation, the Land Commission eventually insist on approving the purchaser and insist on the purchase being made by a man whose holding is uneconomic before allowing the purchase. If that is the intention of Deputy Hogan, that all sales be subject to the approval of the Land Commission, there is a lot to be said for it.

General MacEoin

I think the Minister first put his finger on the point of the whole matter and then avoided it. He pointed out, and rightly so, that a solicitor buys in trust for an alien and it is only when the deed is about to be completed and the solicitor gets his costs and stamps and everything else that the Minister or the Land Commission become aware of it. But does that not apply to the farmer who is selling the land as well as to the Minister? If a solicitor is buying in trust, surely he does not tell the farmer who is selling that he is buying for a German? The solicitor is allowed to keep the name of the person for whom he is buying in strict confidence. There is no control on him. He gets his fees and stamps the deed and that is that.

The Minister wants the farmer who is selling to be the person responsible. How can he be made responsible if the farm is put up for sale in the ordinary way and we want to retain free sale, as we must, regardless of what anybody says? I insist that is the right of every Irish farmer. If there were a section such as this in the Bill, setting out that there could not be a sale to an alien without the consent of the Land Commission, it would put the alien on notice that he was buying a very doubtful proposition.

On the question of alien purchases, if I understand the land law rightly, and I think I understand it as well as any layman, surely an alien buying a farm of land is not placed in any more favourable position than any ordinary John Citizen? If an alien has bought a farm and there is congestion in the area, surely the Land Commission have the right to take over that farm, if they want to. Is that not the truth?

Mr. Moran

That is the law.

General MacEoin

Here we have the problem of aliens increasing the value of land and putting it out of the reach of the ordinary farmer. I am not too greatly perturbed about that because I understand that the Land Commission have power to take the land of an alien as well as the land of any ordinary citizen. If this amendment is inserted in the Bill, it will put an alien on notice that he is buying something that may be taken from him.

Mr. Tully

That is about the only merit I can see in it.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I do not understand the Minister's attitude when he says that he would have to be divinely inspired to know if an alien is buying land. This amendment endeavours to put it into the legislation that it shall be mandatory that the Land Commission be notified when an alien is buying land. Is there anything revolutionary about that? The Minister wishes us to accept the principle that anybody who wants to sell land should notify his Department straight away; in other words that the Department should have complete and absolute power over the sale of land.

That is one of the fundamentals in this Bill that we object to and are fighting all the way. What this amendment does is to put aliens in a different category from nationals. That is all we are asking the Minister to do. The Minister says that eventually he is bound to know if an alien purchases land. I do not know much about legal matters but I do know that when the deposit money is paid and all the complicated legal matters gone through, it may be six, nine or 12 months before the deed is finally completed and the sale carried out. It is the Minister's argument that it is only when the deed comes to be registered that the Land Commission will be aware of the fact that an alien has bought the land. If we embody this amendment, which is a simple one, in the Bill, all it means is that it will be an illegal act for anybody to buy land for an alien without notifying the Land Commission.

What the Minister means when he wants legislation whereby anybody who sells land, even if he is a national, must have the approval of the Land Commission is that everybody who sells land should be subservient to the Land Commission. We object to that. What we are fighting for here is the rights of Irish nationals vis-à-vis aliens. I do not think anything could be simpler than that and I do not see why the Minister should not accept it.

The Minister is very naive. He wants us to accept in toto legislation providing that the Land Commission may have these complete powers over anybody, no matter who he may be. What we are fighting for is simply this, that we do not want to give aliens the same right as nationals. In other words, we want to protect the rights of nationals and want to place aliens in such a position that the Land Commission, who are the only people who can defend this country against the purchase of land by aliens, can do so.

The Minister thinks he would want to be divinely inspired to do that. He does not want to be divinely inspired. All that is required is to insert a provision in the Bill which will safeguard land for Irish nationals for all time. That is the whole basis and fundamental of the land laws that have been passed starting in 1880 with the first Land Act. That is what we are asking for and that is what Deputy Hogan's amendment means.

If the Minister would tell us that he would agree to that, Deputy Hogan could amend his amendment and bring it in on Report Stage and we would be quite happy to let it go through. With respect to the Minister and to the silent few who sit there, may I say that I notice the expressions on the faces have all changed since I started speaking. If the Minister would only do as I have suggested, we could go on with the Bill.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): The Minister is, I believe deliberately, trying to pretend that he cannot understand this. This is not an attempt to control free sale, in which we believe. It is rather primarily an attempt to control purchase of land by aliens. It is quite a simple matter for the Minister to draft regulations providing that a solicitor acting for any foreign trust or purchaser should at the earliest possible opportunity notify the Land Commission of such purchase by an alien.

In every sale after the auction there is the payment of a percentage of the total property charge. The moment the deposit money is paid the deal is completed, subject to the necessary legal formalities. Surely, it is not impossible to provide that at that stage all lawyers should notify the Land Commission that Mr. So-and-So of Holland has today paid £2,000 deposit for such a farm? Is it impossible for this House to provide the legal machinery to make it obligatory on every legal agent to provide that information forthwith to the Land Commission the moment the first instalment of the deposit money is paid, before any further formalities are carried through, before anything further is done?

I do not know the technicalities carried out by lawyers as regards the transfer of properties and so on but I do know that when something is auctioned there is an immediate payment of proportion of the money which establishes that man as the purchaser. If he afterwards forgoes the deal he has usually to forfeit the money. At that stage there is prima facie a sale and at that stage could it not be made mandatory on the agents of the purchaser to inform the Land Commission that a man had paid a deposit on such a farm and the Land Commission that a man had paid a deposit ado, if the land were situated in part of the country where there was considerable local demand by smallholders? It would, admittedly, limit free sale but to a very slight degree and it does subscribe to the purpose of trying to put some control on the purchase of land by foreigners where that land is necessary to our own people who should have prior claim upon it and it will obviate circumstances arising of the sale being presented afterwards as a fait accompli to the whole locality, causing considerable annoyance, as it has caused on occasions, throughout the country.

Mr. Moran

I said already that I am not the only one who misunderstands the effect of this. What Deputy Hogan is saying now is something that is not here. There is nothing here to compel a solicitor to break the privilege that exists between himself and his client and disclose his client's secrets. It may well be that the Deputy could put down an amendment to the effect that the Dáil enact, for instance, that the Deputy in his professional capacity will have to disclose the names of the patients in his home, the fees they pay, the disease from which they suffer. That is the very same type of privilege as exists between doctor and patient and solicitor and client as far as the law of privilege is concerned. If the Deputy wants to burst that, that is one thing, but that is not this amendment.

This amendment again says that every purchase of an agricultural holding by an alien shall be subject to the consent of the Land Commission after inspection by the latter as to its suitability or otherwise for land division. What that means I do not know because it contemplates every purchase of a holding by an alien. The holding, having been purchased by an alien, the Land Commission could not possibly go into or be privy to the deal, until the deal, in fact, was registered, until everybody was paid and it came along to the Land Commission to register. The alien is then in possession. He has parted with his money. He has paid whatever he has to pay.

There is only one way of dealing with the situation if the Deputy wants to do it, as I have already said, that is, to forget about bringing in unworkable laws—if, in fact, it would be constitutional to compel legal people to break the privilege that exists between themselves and their clients—and prevent the landowner from selling to an alien. If that is the Deputy's intention, then the way to do it is to make the sale of land subject to the consent of the Land Commission and, as I have already said, if that is what the Deputy wishes to have done we will give consideration to it on the Report Stage of the Bill.

As this amendment stands it is meaningless, ineffective and, in fact, could not achieve any of the objects the Deputy said it would.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Arising out of what the Minister has just said, he certainly has gone a little further than before but is the Minister prepared to differentiate between aliens and nationals? That is the key point of the amendment. We are not lawyers on this side of the House. We do not know if this is correctly worded to meet the requirements of drafting of Bills and so forth but what we do want to do is to differentiate between the rights of aliens and the rights of nationals.

The Minister has again brought us back to the question that we must have an overall law whereby it is the right of the Land Commission to have to agree to every sale in this country. The Minister will perhaps, in all reason, agree that that is a limitation on free sale. We object to that. We suggest there is a particular problem with regard to aliens. I am sure I may speak for Deputy Hogan here, having listened carefully to what he and the Minister said. Is the Minister prepared to put in an amendment on Report Stage in which he will differentiate between aliens and nationals? If so, we are satisfied. We cannot be satisfied otherwise. We are not going to sacrifice our principles because the Minister says you cannot bring in legislation which will break the secrecy between a solicitor and his client. Did this Government not bring in legislation by which they forced bank managers to state what their clients have in the banks? I am not saying the Fianna Fáil Government are worse than any other in that respect, but Governments have power to do that. Putting it to us in this way is only begging the question.

I ask the Minister directly: is he prepared to bring in an amendment covering this so that the Land Commission may be fully cognisant when aliens are purchasing land, an amendment that differentiates entirely between nationals and aliens? That is not in this amendment. This amendment is intended to cover aliens and not nationals. Would the Minister reply?

Mr. Moran

There is nothing I can usefully add to what I have said. If the Fine Gael Party want to provide Land Commission control of land to prevent aliens purchasing it, I shall consider that.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That was never suggested.

Mr. Moran

It is the Deputy's colleague who has put down this amendment, not I.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

In a country like Ireland, where there has been land legislation over a period of 70 or 80 years, could anything be clearer than asking the Minister to differentiate between the rights of aliens and of nationals in relation to land? Has not the whole history of this country been bound up with trying to create vested holdings so that our nationals may enjoy the privilege of owning the land? That is what people have fought for over the centuries. A different situation has arisen today, whereby aliens are endeavouring to buy land in Ireland. It has been repeatedly stated by the Minister that there is not sufficient land to accommodate Irish nationals. We are asking the Minister: is he prepared to have separate legislation for aliens, or does he want to embody nationals and so destroy all the rights and privileges they now enjoy and for which they fought? It is a simple question and I would ask the Minister to answer it.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): The Minister is dumb of malice.

Mr. Moran

I want to correct the Deputy. The correct expression is "mute of malice", not "dumb", like the Deputy.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): Does the Minister accept the principle of a differential between aliens and nationals in respect of the purchase of land? Mute of malice again? The main purpose of this amendment is to give our own people an advantage over the well-heeled foreign purchaser. The Minister has tried to twist it completely.

Mr. Moran

The Deputy needs to exercise some surgery on this amendment.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): Perhaps on the Minister.

Mr. T. Lynch

Give him an injection and you might get some answers.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): The Minister is introducing a different type of amendment, an amendment to control the seller—to control our own people. This is a very patriotic suggestion from the Minister. We must not control the purchaser. We must make no attempt to control the alien. We must not even try to find out he is an alien. We must not ask him his nationality. That is interfering in the secret relationship between the solicitor and his client. What is wrong with asking for the simple information: the man's nationality? We are not asking him whether he is married or single, whether he is a divorced person or not. We do not want to know whether he has one, two or three wives. We merely want to know as early as possible whether he is non-Irish.

Mr. Moran

Why do you not put down an amendment to that effect, if that is what you want? Do you know what you want or what you are talking about?

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): That is a very stupid diversion.

Mr. Moran

This amendment is beyond the comprehension of the Labour Party and beyond my comprehension. It is beyond the comprehension of everybody else in the House.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): I do not know the level of the Minister's comprehension. Any suggestion of interference in the private relationship between a solicitor and his client upsets the Minister. I would be the first person to support the Minister in any attempt he might make to defend the private relationship between a solicitor and his client. It is a fundamental thing; it is something we should all protect. But what we are asking is no grave departure from what has existed for a number of years. We merely want the Land Commission informed by any legal agent purchasing land for a foreigner, or for a foreign trust, of the nationality of the purchaser. There is nothing revolutionary in that departure. I see no difficulty for the Minister or his parliamentary draftsman in accepting that amendment in principle and drafting regulations to make that practicable.

The Minister pretends not to understand. He says that is not in the amendment. The purpose behind the amendment is crystal clear. If it is not, it has been made clear by speaker after speaker. We merely want to give our own people a first crack at land if it is going, rather than that the foreigner with a lot of money should come in and buy it and our own people should wake up the next morning to find the land gone.

It is as simple as that. I do not know in what more simple language I can explain it. It appears the Minister rejects it because I am not able to draft some kind of legal formula. The Minister has more ability in that respect than I have, because it is his life's work. He is a lawyer. I do other jobs at which the Minister might not be so efficient. At least he understands the purpose of the amendment and, if he has any sympathy with it, which, of course he has not because he is antagonistic towards it, he would at once say that he accepts the principle, but thinks the amendment is badly drafted: "I would suggest you do so and so with it." He has given us no indication of how far he will go. He merely persists in the obstinate attitude he has consistently adopted all through this debate. He will not even answer the simple question: does he accept in principle the fact that an Irishman should have even that slight advantage over an alien in the purchase of land? Does he accept even that slight differential in favour of our own people?

An Ceann Comhairle

I am putting the amendment.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

May I suggest to the Minister that he has twice or three times offered to meet us, but what he offers us we cannot accept, and he has then more or less jibed at us and said the drafting of the amendment is wrong—it is unworkable, impossible, and so forth. May I respectfully suggest that the Minister is himself a lawyer and is considered to be quite an expert on land legislation, coming, as he does, from a county in which there is a good deal of that sort of work. Apart from that, he has expert advisers whose job it is to draft legislation and, if they are not in a position to draft it, they may refer it to more experts in order to produce something which will achieve the object we desire to achieve.

The last time the Minister intervened, he said he could not understand what we wanted and he said the Labour Party could not understand it, either. I learn with deep regret that the Labour Party are in difficulties as to what we want and I beg to intervene now to make crystal clear what we want and to ask the Minister if he could see his way to drafting something to meet our requirements, doing it himself, if he feels qualified, or, if he does not, doing it by falling back on his expert advisers. Where we join issue with the Minister is that he wants legislation whereunder no national, or anybody else who owns land, can sell that land without the consent of the Land Commission. In all fairness, I think my colleagues—I am glad to see those on the opposite benches are now listening to me with respectful silence —will see that it is desirable that Irish nationals with vested holdings, whether they are subject to a Land Commission annuity or otherwise, should have the right to free sale.

What we are asking the Minister to do is simply to perpetuate that right. We do not agree with interfering with the rights of Irish nationals and we are asking the Minister to draft an amendment whereby aliens will not have the same rights to buy. I have stated the reasons before. The Minister says he cannot understand them. May I briefly state them now?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has stated the same thing at least four times since I came into this Chair. The same thing has been said repeatedly.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

With respect, do you know what I am going to say now? Are you a thought reader?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy indicated what he was going to say.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

With respect, I said I was forced to repeat something and you ruled me out of order before I had an opportunity of saying it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy indicated what he was about to say.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

The Chair could listen to me and then rule.

An Ceann Comhairle

I rule that repetition is out of order, even if what is going to be said is indicated.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

It will be extremely difficult for Deputies to debate in Dáil Éireann if the Chair rules them out of order before knowing what they are about to say. I am very doubtful——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may be doubtful, but repetition is disorderly and the Deputy has given way to it on several occasions.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I will give way to you, Sir, if you will tell me what the repetition is.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will not repeat what the Deputy said. I am sure I cannot recollect everything the Deputy has said, but I do know he has repeated himself on several occasions.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

The Minister has repeated himself on several occasions.

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not remove the obligation on the Deputy not to repeat himself.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

You rule then that the Minister is right to repeat?

An Ceann Comhairle

I said no such thing. Repetition is disorderly.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I am asking the Minister if he will get his advisers to draft an amendment to this Bill whereby aliens buying land will be forced to notify, or whoever is acting for them, the Land Commission so that the sale of Irish land to foreigners may be protected.

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely that is not the first time the Deputy asked that tonight?

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I am asking the Minister will he do that and, through you, Sir, perhaps he would reply.

Mr. Barron

I should like to point out that there is a difference of opinion between the people on this side and the Minister with regard to this amendment. I wonder if the Minister introduced an amendment that all sales of agricultural land, other than land for industrial purposes, to non-nationals be subject to the consent of the Land Commission would that meet the position?

Mr. Moran

If Deputy Barron gets the approval of the Fine Gael Party to put down an amendment on Report Stage to the effect that all sales must be subject to the consent of the Land Commission, I will accept that.

Mr. T. Lynch

All sales?

Mr. Moran

How is the Land Commission to know unless they are applied to for their permission? Foreigners cannot purchase Irish land unless Irish people sell it to them. Let us grow up now on this issue.

Mr. T. Lynch

"Grow up" is right.

Mr. Tully

As far as the Labour Party are concerned, we are in complete agreement with any attempt to limit sales to non-nationals. There is, however, one matter in relation to which I am not clear. How can we give Irish farmers the right to free sale to anybody and, at the same time, say they cannot sell to non-nationals? If someone would explain that, perhaps we would be able to make up our minds. One or the other is wrong. Either you have free sale and everybody, including non-nationals, can purchase without the special permission of the Land Commission, in which case there would have to be an amendment, or you have not.

I suggest this amendment does not cover the point. The intention may be right. We are all with it if the intention is to prevent non-nationals purchasing land, but I am afraid the amendment here does not do that, and it has not been proven to us, no matter what discussion we have had here tonight, that it can in any way help to solve the problem. That is the difficulty.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I should love to help the Deputy but I feel certain you, Sir, would rule me out of order as I have explained it once or twice already.

Mr. Moran

The Chair is under criticism.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

This section is one of the most disastrous features of this Bill. It introduces a system of control on dealings in land in respect of which the Land Commission propose to institute, or actually have instituted, acquisition proceedings. No sale, no transfer, no letting, no subletting can lawfully be made without the consent of the Land Commission. Here, a real effort is made to prevent the sale of land, the transfer of land, without the consent and approval of the Land Commission. Beyond all shadow of doubt, this is prohibiting the sale of land.

Not alone does this section prohibit the free sale of land but it interferes with ownership. Certainly, it interferes with the right of a private individual to do what he likes with his property. It is an infringement of the right of a citizen. We have now reached the stage that if this section is passed, a person cannot sell his land, transfer it, let it, set it, sublet it or subdivide it, without the consent of a Government Department. In my opinion, this is State intervention in respect of private property. It is a case of the State preventing the citizen from exercising his lawful and democratic right as a citizen and it is wrong. That is why I oppose this section very strenuously.

But this section does more than that. It will now make it a serious offence for any person to transfer his property, to sell, set, let or sublet his property without the consent—in writing, I thank you—of the Land Commission. It does more than that and is more serious than that because this section 13 prohibits the sale, transfer, letting or subletting of all land in this State, except with the permission and approval of the Land Commission.

Mr. Moran

That is not so. Read subsection (1).

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I have read it.

Mr. Moran

"Where notice has been served by the Land Commission."

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I am coming to that, It is more serious still when it comes to the question of the serving of the notice by the Land Commission because this is a case in which the Land Commission will have the right, the authority and the power to freeze the lands, according to this section, for a period of a year.

Last night, the Minister said he was prepared to come back to us on Report Stage and when I pressed him to have a period of three months, he said he might consider allowing a period of six months.

Where proceedings have been instituted, the control period runs until the termination of these proceedings. Where notice of inspection with a view to possible acquisition has been served, the control period—until the Report Stage of this Bill—runs for one year. That is as we see it here. This is a very drastic interference with the rights of ownership. Simply by serving a notice of inspection, a Land Commission officer, a senior inspector or any high-ranking officer of the Land Commission can freeze all dealings in respect of a holding for one year.

We appreciate the necessity of empowering the Land Commission to take prompt and effective action in certain circumstances but we consider that the period of control should very drastically be reduced. I hope that when the Minister comes to us on Report Stage, he will meet us very generously on this matter and that, when contemplating a six months period, on further consideration, he may perhaps agree to the three months period.

During the period when the lands are frozen, the owner will be deprived of any benefits or any profits from the land, whilst at the same time he is responsible for rent, rates and outgoings. We can also understand the more serious aspect that whilst the Land Commission may serve notice and freeze all dealings in relation to the land for a period of a year, the value of the land will very seriously be affected.

Everybody knows that the full market value of land will reduce drastically in the event of the Land Commission serving the notice. Consider the period when the lands will be left idle, when they cannot be set, sold or transferred. In my opinion, it is a very serious attempt drastically to devalue the property, to reduce the value of any man's farm or any man's holding. It is something to which we on this side of the House cannot subscribe. That is why I feel very strongly about this objectionable section.

It is a very serious matter to deprive by law the owner of land of his right to sell his property when and if he so desires. It is a very grave abuse of the authority of Government to interfere with the right of free sale which was obtained in this country after many years of struggle and very great sacrifices.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The debate on section 13 is restricted to lands in respect of which the Land Commission propose to institute proceedings.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is quite correct, but if the Land Commission serve a notice or carry out an inspection, then, under this section, for a period of a year, the owner may not sell the land, set it or transfer it to his son or to a member of his family, or even give it away for love and affection. He can do nothing with it. That is why I say this matter is very grave and something which members of this House ought to view with very serious concern. This procedure can be used unfairly. The Land Commission can effectively leave a landowner in a very difficult position. As a result of the implementation of this section, a landowner can be forced to sell his land eventually at a price far less than its market value.

Mr. T. Lynch

Hear, hear.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

When a man is forced by the laws of the country to sell his land at less than market value, it is something the members of the House must view with the gravest concern. The section deals with the complete freezing of all lands on which the Land Commission serve notice. What is to stop any Minister for Lands from taking advantage of that? We may take the word of the present Minister for what it is worth that such notices will be issued by the Commission only after most serious thought and consideration of all circumstances but we have no guarantee that for political, business, personal or other purposes, the Land Commission on the instructions of any Minister for Lands will not serve notice on any farmer, whether there is an agitation for the division of land or not. They may leave that farm for 12 months in such a way that the owner cannot derive a penny benefit from it, no matter what its extent because they serve notice of intention to inspect with a view to acquisition.

Mr. Corish

Does it include existing lettings?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It would. Once the notice is served, all lettings are null and void.

Mr. Corish

I should not say so.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

May I ask the Minister if I am correct in that?

Mr. Moran

Pardon.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister is not taking any notice.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Surely the Minister is listening to the debate?

Mr. Corish

If there is a current letting on the land, must that be cancelled?

Mr. Moran

No.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

After the Land Commission notice is served——

Mr. Moran

Not at all. It is to prevent transfers.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

After the serving of notice——

Mr. Moran

I am answering Deputy Corish's question.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Would the Deputy ask him the question he asked me?

Mr. Corish

I have, and he says existing lettings would not be interfered with.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

When the Land Commission serve notice, the moment the inspection is carried out, the owner cannot sell after that; he cannot set and he cannot give it away. He cannot transfer the land. The lands are frozen under this section for 12 months and he can do nothing with them. That is an objectionable state of affairs that we cannot possibly tolerate. I am not too satisfied that there will not be reasons, political or otherwise, for which certain farmers may be served with notice and their lands frozen so that eventually they will be compelled to dispose of their land under value. That is a very serious matter and we must oppose it.

This is a most objectionable section. It could deprive farmers of their livelihood and eventually of their land. It will deny them rights and facilities they now properly enjoy as free citizens. This may cause a great deal of amusement to Fianna Fáil members, but when this section is passed and becomes law, many representations will be made to Deputies by landowners saying they are compelled to sell their lands under value, or that the lands are being allowed to remain in a position of giving no financial return for 12 months or whatever period the Minister fixes under this section. That is very serious and objectionable. It deprives farmers of the right of free sale. No civil servant, Minister, or State Department should have authority to devalue anybody's property or prevent him from doing as he wishes with it.

The section is not only objectionable but undemocratic and I seriously feel it is unconstitutional. Eventually, it will cause severe hardship to all landowners and farmers. There is nothing to prevent the Land Commission from serving notice and carrying out an inspection on any farm they like. It is one of the most objectionable sections of the Bill and I hope that the House in its wisdom will, as a result of the division which will take place on it, have it rejected.

Mr. P.J. Burke

On 30th of this month I shall have been 20 years in this House and during that time I have listened to Deputy Flanagan asking questions about why certain estates in Laois-Offaly were not acquired to relieve congestion in his constituency. The Minister is trying to do his job, and as a man who came from the land myself, I am very anxious that he should have an opportunity of doing so. In this section we are empowering the Minister to do a job in which we all hope he will succeed, that is, to bring about a state of affairs in which a man can have an economic holding. He should live solely on the land, and his holding should be A, B or C, according to the disposition of the Land Commission.

Deputy Flanagan cannot blow hot and cold. We have certain rights in this House and I have the same rights as Deputy Flanagan has. If I say anything personal outside the gates of the House, I can be charged with making a personal attack on someone, but here in the House we can say what we like.

Mr. Corish

Is that not blowing hot and cold?

Mr. T. Lynch

It is lukewarm.

Mr. P.J. Burke

John Jones or Oliver Flanagan or Brendan Corish may have a farm of land he wants to divide between four sons and it is time something was done to deal with a case of that kind.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

It was dealt with long ago.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Does Deputy Flanagan propose that the Land Commission should be abolished, and that everything should be let go haywire? In that case no land would be resettled. What Deputy Flanagan suggests is completely ridiculous. A man may fall on hard times and want to let his land for a few years. In that case the Minister wants him to tell the Land Commission that he wants to let the land for a few years. Is that not the position? Surely that is not too much to ask of anyone. The position in Dublin and every other part of Ireland is that the Land Commission cannot buy any land at all. They have no right to go in, good, bad or indifferent. Even if the Land Commission could buy land, it would be too expensive for the tenants——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid the Deputy is getting away from section 13, which introduces a system of control on dealings in respect of certain lands.

Mr. P.J. Burke

That is what I am referring to—"Lands to be sold, let or sublet". We are asking the Minister to deal with a situation which was handed down to us by an alien Government, a situation which we have inherited. Is it too much to ask this Parliament to be just in the matter of the sale, letting or subletting of property with the consent or approval of the Land Commission? I welcome any change that will bring about an improvement in the position of uneconomic holdings today.

Deputy Flanagan was very vocal over a long number of years, and successive Fianna Fáil Ministers were abused by the honourable Deputy for not going in and buying land in his constituency. Now that the Minister wants to deal with a national problem, Deputy Flanagan says he is interfering with the rights of persons to set, sell or sublet property. I wonder is Deputy Flanagan serious? I do not think he is. I think he is just playing politics. If he went down to his constituency and made that statement, he would not get a vote. We are trying to deal with a national problem.

Mr. Corish

He said some queer things and he got plenty of votes.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I believe the Irish people will be treated fairly under this Bill. The Minister wants to make progress which is long overdue. Is the House aware that the Land Commission and successive Ministers have been held up in dividing land because of the rundale system? There have been a number of court cases over land. I have known since my childhood the rundale system and other systems.

Mr. Corish

The Deputy is filibustering now.

Mr. P.J. Burke

No. I saw many cases which arose out of that rotten system which the Minister is trying to deal with now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is speaking generally and not relating his remarks to the section.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am trying to prove to the House how essential section 13 is, if we are to achieve anything so far as land division is concerned. It is no use trying to achieve anything by lukewarm methods. I know Deputy Flanagan has set himself up as an authority on land. He is entitled to his opinion and I am entitled to mine. Deputy Flanagan seems to maintain that a local uneconomic holder should not be considered, and dare the Land Commission go in and purchase any land at all. They should not go in. This is how I am interpreting Deputy Flanagan. On the other hand, he will go and cry around at the churches and say that all the poor——

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I do not cry in the church; I pray.

Mr. P.J. Burke

He will say: "There is this farm of land and I am going to the Minister for Lands and I will see that it is divided." But he did not say that tonight.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Deputy knows I did not say that tonight.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The Deputy said that under section 13 if a man were an absentee landlord and had 3,000 acres and if there were 300 small uneconomic holders dare the Minister go in, that he had better keep out of that. That is the interpretation. I know, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that you are a kindly man and you will bear with me to develop this point——

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

You can trespass too much on his kindliness.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Deputy will be slaughtered by the Fianna Fáil Whips because he was told not to talk.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): He is innocuous.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Deputy Burke knows I did not say those things at all tonight.

Mr. P.J. Burke

If there is a 5,000 acre farm in Laois or Offaly and if there are a couple of hundred small uneconomic holders in any parish in Rathdowney or in Portarlington or even in Mountmellick——

Mr. T. Lynch

They will not get it; you will bring them in from Galway.

Mr. P.J. Burke

It is kind of the Deputy to try to help me with my speech but he will not put me off.

Mr. Corish

This is filibustering.

Mr. Tully

They must not want a vote tonight.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order. Let us get back to section 13.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The position is that the Minister is not to buy this 5,000 acre holding in Laois, or the 10,000 acre holding or the 500 acre holding, put any figure you like on it, according to Deputy Flanagan, and the Minister dare not tell the owner, although he is an absentee landlord, to freeze his land or he will go in to acquire it for the benefit of the uneconomic holders in the area. He cannot do it according to Deputy Flanagan.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I did not say that.

Mr. P.J. Burke

This is the gentleman who wants the Minister to acquire all the estates in the country.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Deputy mentioned that before, did he not?

Mr. Geoghegan

Deputy Lynch sold any land he had.

Mr. T. Lynch

When I was getting 2/6 for calves it was time to get out of farming under Fianna Fáil.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The Deputy always played England's game.

Mr. T. Lynch

I was glad to see England winning the war and not——

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us get back to the section.

Mr. T. Lynch

You went to the Japanese and asked for the English General Staff in Singapore to be executed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Lynch should cease interrupting.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Deputy said these things to me.

And Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will please resume his seat. Deputy Burke is entitled to speak without interruption.

Mr. T. Lynch

He is not entitled to come along again with all this old British stuff. Is he in order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputy Burke please relate his remarks to section 13?

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am doing that. I am trying to make an intelligent contribution to the debate and when you hear a man getting up and talking about the Civil War——

Mr. T. Lynch

You brought it up yourself.

Mr. P.J. Burke

——and the Economic War, what can one do? As a national Party, we are trying to do the best we can for the community.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Section 13.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Section 13 is the section which is trying to do that for every section. I do not wish Deputy Flanagan any harm one way or the other because I have only one real enemy and he is Paddy Burke——

Mr. Corish

The Deputy deserves two acres.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I cannot see how Deputy Flanagan is going to go down to Laois or Offaly and say that he is going to see that the man with 5,000 acres will have free sale and see that the Land Commission is not going to interefere with him. Then he will go to the cross roads and meet 20 small farmers and tell them: "I am going to see you will get some of that holding."

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I shall not mark them off in the ashes or divide them in the ashpit.

Mr. Geoghegan

You will auction them.

Mr. Moran

Deputy Blowick patented that system.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I shall not say: "This is your piece, Paddy, and there, where the coal fell out, is yours, Mick."

(Interruptions.)

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am sorry if I am disturbing Deputy Flanagan.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

No, I love listening to the Deputy.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I want to emphasise how ridiculous is the contribution of Deputy Flanagan. I want to prove conclusively how he wanted to tie up the Minister, any Minister for Lands—Deputy Flanagan might be Minister for Lands himself in a few years——

A Deputy

God forbid.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Good luck to the man——

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I would give the Deputy a few acres. If you keep right on my side I will look after you. The Deputy would be entitled to a few.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Burke.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I remember attending a few plays in my time——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot see how this arises on section 3.

Mr. P.J. Burke

There used be a great character in Dublin and he was able to come out on the stage in a number of different roles. He was able to come out as a landlord, then as a tenant, then as a politician and then as a clergyman. There is one thing about it: Deputy Flanagan has him nearly beaten.

Mr. T. Lynch

You would not do too badly yourself.

Mr. P.J. Burke

That is all I have to say, except to point out that in the matter of the selling, setting or subletting of land, Deputy Flanagan stands for the man with the big holding. He does not want any uneconomic holdings left. We know the act Deputy Flanagan has been playing here. We know the two acts he will play in his constituency: one is played at the crossroads for the benefit of the smallholders; the other is played for the benefit of the big fellow with the 7,000 acres of land.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

There is no such place in Laois-Offaly.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Well, then, for the man with the 700 acres, 500 acres or even 300 acres. That is what the Deputy is at.

Mr. Tully

We have been accused here during the past few weeks of holding up the business of the House, of impeding the Minister in his endeavour to get the Bill through. I should point out, therefore, that the last piece of reminiscence by the Fianna Fáil Deputy from Dublin has cost the House exactly 30 minutes of its valuable time. All I want to say is simply that we believe the Bill, if it is to have the desired effect, must have teeth, and here are the teeth of the Bill. Last night the Minister told me —I believe he also told Deputy Flanagan—that he was prepared to consider reducing the period from one year to six months. If he implements that promise, it is all the safeguard that is needed.

The NFA, in their survey report, say they appreciate the necessity for empowering the Land Commission to take prompt action in certain circumstances but that they consider the period of control should be reduced to one month, with, perhaps, an extension of a further month in certain cases. As far as I am concerned, I believe a period of six months is reasonable. We know that in the interim period, a man will be deprived of the use of his land. In fact, the NFA report states that this has the effect of prohibiting the sale or transfer of land except by the consent of the Land Commission where the Land Commission have instituted, or propose to institute, proceedings for acquisition or resumption.

Objection is made to the method by which a senior inspector of the Land Commission has the power of freezing. What has been happening is that whenever the owner of a big piece of land which has not been properly worked has heard that the Land Commission have become interested, he runs off to sell it. I have addressed question after question to the Minister and the Land Commission requesting that something should be done. Deputy Flanagan has been working on the same idea. Our reason was to attempt to stop the leakage of thousands of acres of valuable land from the land pool. We must be prepared to support efforts of the Government to achieve this.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister's offer of six months is not good enough because it would mean there would be a freeze of that duration on the disposal of land. Certain Deputies, particularly Deputy P. J. Burke, have talked about 5,000 acre holdings. I wish to talk about a man with 45 acres, perhaps in poor economic circumstances, perhaps because he still has not got over the effects of the Economic War, who has not been able to work that holding properly for that reason. He loves that land, but he has to leave it: he must go to England or elsewhere to try to get a few quid together so that he may be able to return to that land some day. Now, once the Land Commission put their dead hand on that land and freeze it, nobody will pay that man a bob for it. He is like a man under sentence of death; he will have to sell the land eventually at much less than market value.

Deputies have been talking about the people who may be looking for land; I am talking about people who are trying to sell land. What will Fianna Fáil Deputies say to a man who comes to them and says: "They have frozen my land"? I know what we shall say, if they come to us: "Go to the Fianna Fáil people—they made it possible". Why should the Land Commission be allowed six months in which to make up their minds as to whether or not they should buy a farm, let it be 20 acres or 1,000 acres? An ordinary individual must go out into the open market and make up his mind in two days. That is only as it should be.

I know the officers of the Land Commission. They are all over 21 years of age; they have been around; they know how to buy land, how to value it. If land is advertised in the newspapers, the Land Commission can nominate a buyer to go after it, to examine it first and buy it if it is suitable for their purposes. If a farmer can get a better price for his land from an Irish citizen than from the Land Commission, why should the Land Commission be permitted to go in and prevent that farmer getting that price? We have had a lot of clap-trap about the economic advances made in the country. Most of these advances were made because the price of land advanced, because it became easy to sell land, to realise money on it. Bankers were prepared to give people extra overdraft accommodation because of those circumstances. I have in mind one case of a farmer who had a bank overdraft, and when it became public property that land in the area was being sold at excellent prices, he was able to go to his bank manager and say, having pointed out the circumstances: "I owe you only £2,000. In the circumstances you should advance me another £2,000. Then I can go out and buy 12 cows."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the section.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing with the control of dealings in certain lands.

Mr. T. Lynch

And I am pointing out to the Minister the importance of leaving free sale to the farmers. If this provision is put into law, it will immediately depreciate the value of land.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Of course it will.

Mr. T. Lynch

We should look at this clearly and not continue to talk about 1,000 acre holdings. If one goes into the west of Ireland, one finds small holdings from which people have been driven through economic circumstances. Why should the disposal of such holdings by the owners be frozen if those owners can get good prices from Irish citizens?

My colleagues have put up a very good case to the Minister. We want to see the sales of lands to foreigners controlled and if the sale is to a foreigner or to an agent of a foreigner, the Land Commission should step in. We consider this section to be wrong. It is wrong to freeze a man's land for six months. It would be wrong to go into a fair and say to a man: "You may not sell your cattle for another three hours until we go into a hotel and decide what we shall give you for them" while there are plenty of people at the fair to buy them.

The Land Commission have a job to do. They have people who know how to value and how to carry out the various transactions. The only thing that is wrong is that they are too slow about it. I would exhort the Minister to make the period three months. Three months is long enough to hold up any man's place. It is a terrible thing we are doing here. There were some irresponsible Deputies here like Deputy Burke talking about Irish people who owned land as if they were Hottentots. They have the right to sell their land. If a man is broke and wants to sell his farm and can get a good price for it so that he will have money in his pocket, is it Fianna Fáil policy to prevent him doing so?

I made a statement here tonight that the Minister and the Land Commission are trying to set themselves up as head landlords of Ireland. We do not want any more landlords in Ireland. This is the kind of section that would make a Minister—and he might not want it— the head landlord. The Minister could come along to take over a farm in accordance with a provision dealt with last night where the Land Commission can, after the passing of this Act, make an advance for the purchase of a holding. Then the man's land can be fenced off and he is prevented from selling it at the market price.

The man who owns that land is a citizen of this State. He was probably born on that farm and his father before him. Nevertheless, we talk lightly here of putting him out of it. The poor man does not want to sell. They run down the value of the place. The owner is out of his depth and is often frightened of the whole business. This is a scandalous state of affairs.

I grew up among people whose proudest boast was what their people did in the Land War and the fact that they stuck to their lands. Now if their sons or grandsons want to sell their land the Parliament of Ireland will go coldly into these lobbies and vote to deny them that right. I have looked over at the Fianna Fáil Party's empty benches in the long watches of this debate. Nobody spoke except Deputy Burke and he spoke out of turn. Nevertheless, when the bell rings, they will go into the lobbies like the trained dog I saw in the Gaiety Theatre long ago and pass the section if we challenge a division.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with what is before the House.

Mr. T. Lynch

They do not know what is going on in the House. The Minister should look at this again. I want to give the Minister every possible chance of taking over land that should be taken over. I want to prevent the Minister and the Land Commission being put in a position to say in regard to a holding: "We have made an advance on this holding and, therefore, nobody within 50 miles may buy it."

In regard to subdivision, I do not know why we must write down everything. If a man has 60 acres of land and wants to sell 20 acres, he must reapportion the land annuities. I have known "slickers" in this country who would sell portion of their land and who would endeavour to have all the land annuities on the holding imposed on the portion they were selling, giving them a freehold. It is not a bad idea if one can get away with it. However, my experience of the Land Commission is that they will not allow people to do that. They go back even to the Brehon laws. As we were told on one famous occasion: "To every cow its calf and to every book its copy." The Land Commission have added: "To every acre its annuity." It is not necessary to put that down solemnly in an Act that people must get permission from the Land Commission to subdivide their land. I am sure the Minister in his professional capacity, when a sale takes place and he is acting for the vendor, will automatically write to the Land Commission and ask the Land Commission to reapportion the land annuities. There is a great deal of deadwood in this Bill that will only make the whole land issue more complicated. The more complicated it is made, the worse it will be from the point of view of selling land.

Deputy Flanagan was criticised here for remarks in regard to division of land. My memory is not bad. I have never seen a question down from Deputy Flanagan where he wanted an ordinary farm to be taken over. It might be a big estate that was not being farmed properly. I remember when this Party were over there and Deputy Blowick was Minister for Lands, Deputy Flanagan stormed him on the question of taking over these estates in his constituency. Deputy Flanagan was right and Deputy Flanagan will do it again. I am thankful that I represent a constituency where even though there are land hungry people, as there are everywhere in Ireland, they are not coming to me in this connection. Most of the big estates in County Waterford that were not being run properly were taken over and divided, and rightly so. There are big estates left in County Waterford and the Land Commission would have no business entering them at all because they give an enormous amount of employment. The employers are generous and they have the sign of good employers in the age of the people working for them. They have people working for them who worked in these estates for three generations.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.