I do not think there is anything else I can usefully add to what I have said already on this section.
Land Bill, 1963 — Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That section 43 stand part of the Bill."
Where does the Minister's new amendment about non-nationals come in?
There is a new section after this.
It is proposed to insert a new section after section 43?
Yes.
All right.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 43d:
In page 19, before section 44, to insert the following section:
"(1) In this section—
`land to which this section applies' means land not situate in a county borough, borough, urban district or town;
`interest', in relation to land, includes—
(a) an estate,
(b) a leasehold interest or tenancy,
(c) an interest of a mortgagee (including an equitable mortgagee) or chargeant,
(d) an interest referable to a person's having contracted to buy, or having contracted to take a lease or tenancy,
(e) an interest consisting of the right to ratify a contract or other transaction conferred by subsection (1) of section 37 of the Companies Act, 1963,
(f) an interest referable to a possessory title,
and comprises equitable and beneficial interests as well as legal interests;
`qualified person' means a person who is in any of the following categories:
(i) an Irish citizen,
(ii) a person (other than a body corporate) who has been ordinarily resident in the State continuously during the seven years ending at the material time,
(iii) a person who is certified by the Minister for Industry and Commerce as having shown to the satisfaction of that Minister that he is acquiring the relevant interest exclusively for the purpose of an industry other than agriculture,
(iv) a local authority for the purposes of the Local Government Act, 1941,
(v) a body corporate which, by virtue of a licence issued under or having effect by virtue of the Companies Act, 1963, is registered under that Act without the addition of the word `limited' or the word `teoranta',
(vi) a body corporate established by a Saorstát Éireann statute or an Act of the Oireachtas,
(vii) a body corporate incorporated in the State pursuant to a specific direction or authorisation contained in a Saorstát Éireann statute or an Act of the Oireachtas,
(viii) a bank named in the Third Schedule to the Central Bank Act, 1942,
(ix) a person who is certified by the Land Commission as having shown to their satisfaction that he is acquiring the relevant interest for private residential purposes where the land involved does not exceed five acres in extent,
(x) any category declared by the Minister by regulations to be an additional category for the purposes of this definition;
`State authority' means—
(a) A Minister of State,
(b) the Land Commission,
(c) the Revenue Commissioners,
(d) the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland;
any reference to the vesting of an interest shall, in the case of a contingent or executory interest or any other interest not vesting when created, be construed as referring solely to the creating of the interest.
(2) (a) Notwithstanding any other enactment or any rule of law, but subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection and to subsection (3) of this section, no interest in land to which this section applies shall become vested in a person who is not a qualified person except with the written consent (whether general or particular) of the Land Commission and subject to any conditions attached to the consent having been complied with.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply in a case in which an interest becomes vested—
(i) in a State authority,
(ii) in the legal personal representative, as such, of a deceased person, or
(iii) on the distribution of the estate of a deceased person if the interest becomes vested, in the case of an interest which is real estate, in the heir or a member of the family (not being the heir) of the deceased person or, in any other case, in a member of the family of the deceased person.
(c) In subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (b) of this subsection `member of the family' means father, mother, step-father, stepmother, husband, wife, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, step-son, step-daughter, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, son-in-law or daughter-in-law.
(3) (a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection, an instrument by which an interest in land to which this section applies purports to become vested (being an instrument which, apart from this section, would effect such vesting) shall effect such vesting provided that it contains—
(i) a certificate certifying an appropriate consent having been given under this section and, if any conditions are attached to that consent, certifying compliance therewith, or
(ii) a certificate by the person in whom the interest is purported to be vested that the person who becomes entitled to the entire beneficial interest in the interest (or, where more than one person becomes entitled to a beneficial interest therein, each of them) is a qualified person by reference to a specified category of the definition of `qualified person' contained in subsection (1) of this section, or
(iii) a certificate that the instrument is consequent upon a contract entered into before the passing of this Act, or
(iv) if the instrument is relative to a case referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section, a certificate that the case is within that subparagraph,
notwithstanding any objection to the accuracy of such certificate.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply to an instrument relative to a case referred to in paragraph (b) (other than subparagraph (iii) thereof) of subsection (2) of this section.
(4) (a) Where the Land Commission are of opinion that a person who is not a qualified person has after the passing of this Act come into possession, occupation or control of land to which this section applies otherwise than by reference to a consent under subsection (2) of this section, the Land Commission may, by notice in writing served in the prescribed manner on the person, require him to deliver to them before a specified date (not earlier than thirty days after the service of the notice) a statement in writing containing such particulars as may be specified in the notice in relation to his possession, occupation or control of the land, and the person shall comply with the requisition.
(b) In the foregoing paragraph `occupation' includes occupation by merely being present on the land and `control' includes indirect control.
(5) (a) Where, at a time when an interest in land to which this section applies stands vested in a body corporate, control of the company becomes transferred to a person who is not a qualified person, the following provisions shall have effect:
(i) it shall be the duty of the body corporate to disclose such transfer to the Land Commission within one month from such transfer, and
(ii) if the Land Commission institute proceedings for the acquisition or resumption of the land or any part thereof, no restriction contained in subsection (3) of section 32 of the Land Act, 1933 (as amended by subsequent enactments, including this Act) or subsection (6) of section 39 of the Land Act, 1939 (as amended as aforesaid) shall apply.
(b) In paragraph (a) of this subsection `control', in relation to a body corporate, means the power of a person to secure, by means of the holding of shares or the possession of voting power in or in relation to that or any other body corporate, or by virtue of any powers conferred by the articles of association or other document regulating that or any other body corporate, that the affairs of the first-mentioned body corporate are conducted in accordance with the wishes of that person.
(6) Where a person— (a) makes any statement which to his knowledge is false or misleading either in a certificate for the purposes of this section or in a reply to a requisition under this section, or
(b) fails to comply with a requisition under this section, or
(c) fails to make a disclosure which he is required by this section to make,
he shall be guilty of an offence triable, at the election of the prosecution, either summarily or on indictment and shall be liable—
(i) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to both such fine and such imprisonment, or
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one thousand pounds or, at the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
(7) Where an offence under this section is committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been committed with the authority, consent or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary, or other officer of the body corporate, he shall also be deemed to have committed the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(8) (a) A consent by the Land Commission for the purposes of this section may be given retrospectively and, if so given, shall have effect accordingly.
(b) Evidence of a consent of the Land Commission for the purposes of this section may be given in any legal proceedings by production of a certificate under the seal of the Land Commission certifying that they have given such consent.
(c) Where a consent is given by virtue of paragraph (a) of this subsection after the execution of the relevant instrument, the appropriate certificate under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section shall be deemed to be included in the instrument.
(9) Every stipulation in a contract whereby it is sought to preclude the making of requisitions in relation to a consent by the Land Commission for the purposes of this section shall be null and void.
(10) Notwithstanding subsection (4) of section 10 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, summary proceedings for an offence under this section may be instituted within three years from the date of the offence."
This new section, unavoidably a rather complex one, is designed to deal with the problem of the purchase of farm land by non-nationals. I have repeatedly made it clear in statements to this House over the past few years that the Government were keeping a close watch on the extent of such purchases and were at all times alive to the possibility that some formula might be discovered to enable non-nationals to escape the special stamp duty. On several occasions I appealed to Deputies to report any instances in which they knew or suspected that evasion had taken place. I got no specific report on this point. Coupled with the knowledge I have gathered from other sources, this fact convinces me that there has not been any widespread evasion of the existing heavy stamp duty and that no large areas of land have been sold to non-nationals without the knowledge or assent of the Land Commission.
There is, however, some reason to think that a few Irishmen have found ways to facilitate the purchase of farms by non-nationals using legal subterfuges which enabled the purchasers to evade the special duty. The Government have decided that any such gaps must be closed before any general harm is done. We have always asserted our readiness to deal with this type of activity whenever it appeared necessary and this new section is our proposed remedy. In view of the length of the section I shall explain it by first stating its effects in broad terms and then going through it step by step in greater detail.
The general proposal is to initiate a system of direct control by the Land Commission over the purchase of rural land by non-nationals. There are exemptions in favour of industrial and residential units; a special concession is given to non-nationals long resident in this country; care is taken to avoid upsetting the ordinary business of the transfer of agricultural properties between citizens and there are special features aimed at ensuring that the new proposals do not have an adverse effect on the common sources of agricultural credit for the native farmer. But, with very few exceptions, the non-national who wishes to purchase or control farm land, either as an individual or by operating through a company, will not under this section be able to do so lawfully without the prior consent of the Land Commission.
Turning to the details of the new section, Deputies will find that subsection (1) deals with a number of definitions. To begin with, the section covers all land except urban land. Our primary purpose is, of course, to protect farm land or "agricultural land" but it is an extremely difficult matter to draft a definition of agricultural land which would embrace all ordinary farm land and exclude "white elephant" properties and other units of rural land which, by and large, might be allowed pass to non-nationals without loss to the rural community and without causing any upset in the land structure reform programme. In fact, there are so many localities in which different types and qualities of land are intermixed with one another that it would be almost impossible to frame a section which distinguished clearly between the wheat and the chaff. It was accordingly decided that if the section was to be effective it must first capture all rural land and then provide simple forms of exemption for such properties as could suitably be regarded as outside policy. This sounds rather drastic but it will be seen as I go on that the list of exemptions is as generous as it can safely be.
Next we have a definition of "interest" in relation to land which is designed to cover a substantial number of the evasion devices which could theoretically be applied against present stamp duty laws. Thus, while sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) cover the straightforward cases in which a man owns or leases land, sub-paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) relate to a number of different ways in which he might achieve effective control without completing a direct instrument of transfer to himself. For example, (c) is aimed at the non-national who might arrange for an Irish agent to buy a farm, lend him the money for this purpose and take a mortgage from him; the non-national could then enter into effective control while the citizen remained in residence to keep up appearances. Alternatively he could instruct the citizen to default in the mortgage, and he himself would enter into possession as mortgage without having to complete an instrument of direct transfer which, as we shall see later, would be ineffective without the consent of the Land Commission. The last line in this definition is intended to bring in any residue of cases in which the non-national would arrange to have the legal interest vested in a citizen while, in the non-legal sense, he himself became the real owner.
Next we come to a definition of "qualified person", that is, a person who will be qualified to buy rural land, without having to seek the consent of the Land Commission. The Irish citizen naturally must be qualified; also there is a concession to the non-national who has resided among us for such a substantial period that we are prepared to accept him as one of ourselves even though in fact he has not changed his citizenship. Sub-paragraph (iii) contains an exemption for industrial purchases and (iv) for local authorities. The next three clauses cover semi-State companies and other bodies corporate which for one reason or another are unlikely to be used as cover for evasion. These are State companies set up under Acts of this House.
Deputies will appreciate that in this context I have assumed that the ostensibly Irish company is the Trojan Horse which is most likely to be used to breach the defences. Consequently I have adopted the attitude that all companies dealing with or purchasing farmland must submit to some form of scrutiny unless by their nature they are entirely above suspicion. The Agricultural Credit Corporation, which has many dealings with native farmers by way of mortgage, is one such body corporate and it can be safely exempted. Similarly, sub-paragraph (viii) exempts all the principal banks operating in this country because it is clear that they cannot be used in an objectionable manner. More important still, however, is the fact that the Government does not wish to introduce unnecessary obstacles to the ordinary machinery of charges on land which enable the banks to make working capital available to the Irish farmer.
Sub-paragraph (ix) is very similar to a provision in the Finance Acts and it will allow a non-national to purchase a country residence with a few acres of amenity land provided he has passed the scrutiny of the Land Commission, to make sure that the purchase is not part of an evasion device.
Sub-paragraph (x) will allow the Minister for Lands to create additional categories of exempted persons if, in the working of this section, he finds it desirable and safe to do so. I have in mind that there are some public companies so long established in this country and of such good repute that they would never be suspected of being used to cloak undesirable purchases. If the new section proves irksome to such companies we may be able to find a formula by which they could be given a general release while at the same time we do not open any doors for bogus Irish companies. Deputies will appreciate that I have to proceed cautiously in this matter of exemptions.
Next we have a definition of "State authority" because it is intended to exempt every such body.
In subsection (2) we come to the kernel of the whole section. If a person is not a qualified person within one of the categories I have already described he will not be able to obtain an interest in rural land save by consent of the Land Commission. A consent may be general so that it covers a whole class of people or a series of transactions and it may or may not be subject to conditions. For example, the Land Commission might give consent to the sale of a mansion and grounds to a non-national provided the owner first sold them a sufficient area to satisfy local congestion.
Paragraph (b) provides a complete exemption for a State authority and for the legal personal representative of a deceased person to whom, while acting in that capacity, any interest in land may temporarily pass. This is simply to avoid unnecessary trouble about the ordinary wills of native property owners.
In sub-paragraph (3) we have a much more substantial point about wills. The effect of this provision is that an interest may pass under a will to an heir or to a member of the deceased's family who is a non-national. In the first place, I think it reasonable that those non-nationals who are already established amongst us should be able to leave their own property to their near relatives, even though they are unqualified non-nationals, without the fear that the Land Commission may stop them. Furthermore, I do not think we should prevent an Irish citizen from leaving his property, or part of it, to a son or daughter who has gone abroad and has acquired the citizenship of another State or, to take another instance, to a non-national who has married the testator's son or daughter and is the parent of his grandchildren.
Lastly, by confining this concession to heirs, where appropriate, and members of the deceased's family, we make it highly unlikely that anyone will find a method of evasion based on will-making; if we do not so confine the concession, it is just possible that a non-national might be able to obtain control of a property, without consent, by having it bought in the name of a dying citizen who would will it back to the non-national.
Sub-paragraph (c) limits the meaning of "family" to close relatives. If a citizen wants to bequeath rural land to a far out relative or friend who is a non-national, he will have to seek consent and show reason for doing so.
Subsection (3) deals with the mechanics which conveyancers will have to use to conform to the section after enactment. An instrument which purports to vest land will not be effective unless it contains a certificate of Land Commission consent, or a certificate that the person becoming entitled to the interest is a qualified person, or a certificate that the instrument is consequent upon a contract entered into before the passing of this Act, or a certificate covering the case of family succession under a will, which I have already described.
The last clause in this paragraph is in ease of future conveyancing. It is essential to the future security of the purchasers of rural property in general that one of these certificates embodied in an instrument of transfer should be acceptable on its face value and that the solicitor for a future purchaser should not have to go behind the certificate to seek evidence of the facts it recites.
The wording of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) is a bit involved. The only effect of it is, however, to confirm that instruments passing property rights to State authorities or legal personal representatives will not have to include any of the four certificates I have described.
In subsection (4) we come to very important provisions dealing with persons who may seek to evade this new law. Deputies will appreciate that the system of discouraging non-nationals from the purchase of agricultural land, through the operation of the 25 per cent stamp duty, was a rather indirect one. We have not been completely satisfied with it and we are now changing over to a direct system of control. Any such system of control, if it is to be effective, must include a direct system of confronting, challenging and examining every individual and every company against whom or which it can be honestly alleged that they appear to have flouted the control. Accordingly, this subsection provides that if the Land Commission suspect anyone of evading their control and successfully occupying farmland they shall have power to call upon him to give an account of his dealings with the property.
There is at present a substantial number of companies, big and small, which owns farms in Ireland and it would be possible for a non-national to enter into effective ownership of such land by buying up the shares in the company. Apart from this, there is always the possibility that an ostensibly Irish company might be created especially for the purpose of transferring effective control of land to non-national hands by the manipulation of shares rather than by transfer instrument.
Accordingly, in subsection (5) there is provision that, if a land-holding company under Irish control passes into the control of a non-qualified person, this fact must be reported to the Land Commission and if the Land Commission choose to institute proceedings for the acquisition of the land the ordinary defences against acquisition are no longer available in relation to that land.
Subsection (6) provides heavy penalties for any person who knowingly makes a false or misleading statement for the purpose of this section, or fails to comply with a requisition, or fails to make a report to the Land Commission which he is required to make.
Subsection (7) makes the officers of bodies corporate subject to similar penalties as those which apply to individuals.
Where the Land Commission's consent is requisite, written application to the Department will be necessary ordinarily, in advance of a proposed transaction. To cover exceptional eventualities, there are provisions in subsection (8) that consent may be given retrospectively. This subsection also contains facilities for legal proofs by sealed certificates of the Land Commission.
Subsection (9) provides that where an unqualified person will be selling land after the passing of this Bill, he cannot exclude requisitions on his title in relation to the Land Commission's consent. This provision is intended to increase the risks in evasion devices.
Finally, subsection (10) extends the time for summary proceedings to three years from the date of the offence. Under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, it would, I think, be only six months as the law stands.
It is not possible to guarantee in advance that legislation of this type will prove watertight when put to the test but we have very carefully gone into any suggestions or suspicions that have come to our notice of methods of evasion of the law as it stands. I have felt for some time that, while the penal stamp duty of 25 per cent is very discouraging from the point of view of preventing non-nationals buying land, the Revenue Commissioners are really not the proper people to deal with this matter. The Land Commission have their officials spread out over the length and breadth of the country and would consequently be in a much better position to know whether a suspicious transaction had taken place, whereas, if people swore false affidavits or made false statements in their deeds, it could happen that these people would get away with it.
I do not say what they have done in the past is illegal but, on consideration, it appears to me that the more effective way of dealing with this matter, in so far as it is a problem for us, would be through the Land Commission. We have very carefully considered not alone suspicions but also theoretically any devices which have occurred to us and which could possibly be used to get around or circumvent the law as it stands. This section is as comprehensive as I, at all events, can devise at the moment, and without suggestions from any Deputies, to deal with what might arise for the purpose of evasion of the existing law.
In anticipation of what some Deputies will, no doubt, say about Irish companies, I am quite satisfied that, unless we take global control by means of this section, it will be virtually impossible to devise ways and means of stopping evasion. Let me emphasise again that I am taking power to make further exceptions or exemptions, as we become experienced in the working of this section, and it may well be that we can, where the necessity arises, exempt or except the operations of a number of well-known, old-established Irish companies. But, unless the House is prepared to agree to a global control of this kind to deal with alleged Irish companies, I am quite satisfied there will be no way of stopping evasion. I have no doubt that people would use company devices for the purpose of evading the law. As I say, I have made this section as comprehensive as possible to deal with every situation we can think of and accordingly I recommend it to the House.
The introduction of this amendment gives an interesting instance of Fianna Fáil closing the door after a large part of the horse has gone. We realised the nature of this problem as far back as 1961 and accordingly introduced a Private Bill into the House in the names of myself, Deputies Patrick Giles, Tadgh Manley, Denis Jones, Patrick Lindsay and Oliver J. Flanagan, called the Land (Regulation of Acquisition) Bill, 1961. On that occasion we proposed there should be established a non-nationals land register. We provided that every acquisition of land, the beneficial ownership of which would ultimately accrue to non-nationals, should be registered in the Land Commission. The Bill provided that if any device or skulduggery were employed in order to avoid that obligation, then the sale of the land would be declared null and void. There is no more effective sanction you could employ than to say to some person who wishes to break the land law: "Whatever device you employ, if the end result is that a non-national acquires a beneficial interest in the land without registering it in the Land Commission, the transaction will be null and void and you will have paid your money for nothing."
That is a very effective method of controlling this problem. We were told on the occasion when we introduced the Bill that it was wholly unnecessary, that the Minister was taking all the precautions necessary to control this growing evil and that any precautions of the kind we proposed under the Land (Regulation of Acquisition) Bill, 1961, were superfluous and would do nothing to resolve the problem which we then pointed out to the Government was one of growing importance to the country. Three years have elapsed since we introduced the Bill and now the Government have come in with a Bill designed to achieve exactly the same result. It is a good thing to realise that Parliamentary discussion and agitation in the country still have the salutary effect of waking up a somnolent Government to their clear duty. If the uncontrolled acquisition of agricultural land by non-nationals continued indefinitely, very serious social problems would have been created in rural Ireland.
In the Bill introduced by us, precautions were taken to make it quite clear that our primary purpose was to prevent the acquisition of agricultural land by non-nationals and in the form of the relatively simple Bill we produced, it made it quite possible for a non-national to buy what the Minister described today as a "white elephant" property, and made it quite possible if he were purchasing lands for industrial development to continue his purchase. In fact, it put upon the non-national one obligation, and one obligation only, and that was to keep the Land Commission fully informed of his intention to purchase agricultural land. At the same time it fixed the non-national with notice that if contrary to the general land policy, the non-national acquired agricultural land, the Land Commission had full powers compulsorily to acquire it if it was considered in the public interest to do so, for the relief of congestion in the locality, or for any other purpose for which the Land Commission are entitled compulsorily to acquire land. We are glad that the Government have awakened to the necessity for what we pointed out to them was necessary three years ago when we first introduced this Private Bill, the Land (Regulation of Acquisition) Bill of 1961.
Now, I approve of the Minister, in dealing with a complex question of this kind, reading his brief to us because it is useful to have a clear and positive statement of what his intention is. I envy him the availability of his brief. I suppose all Oppositions always envy Ministers the great advantage they have in having their briefs prepared for them, covering every detail of the measure which they are sponsoring before the House. This is a very comprehensive, long and involved section which the Minister tells us he is advised by his advisers is necessary effectively to control the problem which I believe could have been just as effectively controlled by the proposals in the Land (Regulation of Acquisition) Bill, 1961. The important thing in this connection is to notify all non-nationals that it is contrary to the policy of the Land Commission for substantial areas of agricultural land to pass into non-Irish hands and that if this happens, the Land Commission will use their general power to acquire it compulsorily for the relief of congestion in the area in which it is situated and for re-allocation to Irish nationals in accordance with the general Land Commission policy. However, the Land Commission have sought to stop every gap and cover every contingency which, as the Minister says, is an extremely difficult thing to do.
There are one or two matters of detail in regard to this long amendment, which extends to four pages, to which I direct the Minister's attention. In the first section, he deals with qualified persons and there are ten sub-paragraphs. Sub-paragraph (x), at the top of page 2 of his amendment, provides that a qualified person can belong to "any category declared by the Minister by regulation to be an additional category for the purpose of this definition". The Minister tells us that he puts that in deliberately to leave himself some room for manoeuvring in case some unforeseen type of case arises.
That is all right and it is desirable that there is to be some flexibility here owing to the experimental character of this amendment, but I should be glad to know if he does not agree with me that where he makes a regulation of this character should it not be laid on the Table of the House? It is desirable, if you extend a category of persons to be deemed to be qualified persons, to put it on the records formally. I do not think in that case that it is necessary to ask the Minister to provide the customary provision with regard to the 21 days, because if anybody wants to raise this matter, he can raise it by way of Parliamentary Question, or if necessary by motion, but I do think that it should be put on the records by tabling it so that it may then go into the permanent records of the House which are available in the Library.
There is one other small detail which I should like to draw to the Minister's attention. There is a definition which involves the employment of the word " town ".
In subsection (1) ?
Yes, I think so. The problem is : is there any definition to be found here or in some other statute of the word "town"? I think there are different definitions in different statutes. It might be useful to the Minister if he would look at the statutory meaning of the word "town" and possibly adopt a definition either by reference to the Town Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, or the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963. Otherwise, I think very considerable problems for conveyancers might arise. Possibly the Minister would look into that to determine with which definition of "town" he wishes to bring the amendment into line.
I do not want to rub it into the Minister unduly but I think it right and proper to direct the attention of the House to the fundamental difference between planning intelligently and programming from day to day. An essential feature of intelligent planning is to foresee the problems that are likely to arise and to take precautions in time to prevent their developing into serious social problems which have to be dealt with radically. An admirable example of that is our Land (Regulation of Acquisition) Bill, 1961, whereunder we sought to take precautions before the growth of this evil would reach serious dimensions, to bring it under control, and to fix all and sundry with notice that we did not intend to allow it to develop, that we intended to provide simple machinery which would act not only as an effective deterrent but as an explicit warning to non-nationals that this was the settled policy of the State, and that it was not intended to allow any skulduggery or legal manipulation to circumvent that fundamental policy.
Programming according to Fianna Fáil waits for the evil to develop and then you bring in an amendment running to four pages, which the Minister himself admits is of such complexity, and so difficult, that to explain it takes four or five pages of his own brief. I believe that had we adopted the provisions of the Land (Regulation of Acquisition) Bill, 1961, we would not be confronted with the situation which the Minister now seeks to remedy in section 44 of this Bill. However, it is better to be late than never to act at all.
It is an interesting thing that it took the Roscommon bye-election to awaken the Fianna Fáil Government to the existence of the Shannon floods. It has taken the East-Galway bye-election to awaken the Government to the existence of the problem which they denied was there at all up to about a week or a fortnight ago. Interestingly enough—and I think this is deserving of comment—the introduction of this amendment to the Land Bill was announced, not in Dáil Éireann by the Minister for Lands, but at a Fianna Fáil convention in Loughrea by Deputy Haughey who was then, I think, suspended like Mahomet's coffin between the Department of Justice and the Department of Agriculture. I do not really think that kind of procedure is seemly or becoming.
The Minister for Lands is the Minister for Lands and is responsible for matters relating to the contents of this Bill. It shows a profound lack of respect for the Oireachtas, and for the decencies and proprieties of public life, that a radical amendment to a Land Bill which is at the time under discussion in Dáil Éireann should be announced at a Fianna Fáil convention in East Galway, because contact with the people has at last forced on the Government a realisation of what we were trying to teach them three years ago. If the Government can learn in each bye-election as much as they appear to have learned in Roscommon and East Galway. I cannot imagine what kind of volcanic eruption will take place when the general election comes. Surely revelations and discoveries will be made by Fianna Fáil of a kind never before witnessed in this country.
I suggest to the Minister for Lands that a Fianna Fáil convention addressed by the Pooh-Bah of the Fianna Fáil Government is not the proper place for the Fianna Fáil Party and the Fianna Fáil Government to assume the penitential mantle for the purpose of doing public penance for their past lack of diligence and foresight. Such confessions of failure should more properly be made to the Oireachtas, as has been done by the Minister for Lands this morning. Here they can be discussed and examined, because the likelihood of those things being intelligently done at a Fianna Fáil convention is extremely remote. Intelligent discussion of legislative proposals for the purpose of improving them is an essential part of our legislative procedure.
Before the Dáil went into Recess there was a meeting of the Whips at which it was announced that one of the important items of legislation which had to be concluded before the Recess was the Land Bill. It was impressed on us that no matter what happened, the Land Bill had to go through. It was felt by the Labour Party, and apparently by the Fine Gael Party also, that that task was impossible. The Minister and members of the Fianna Fáil Party have now castigated everyone responsible for that decision up and down the country. If we had concluded the Land Bill before the Recess, section 43 (d) would never have appeared.
Hear, hear.
We would be in the position that, the Land Bill having been completed, we could not expect another Land Bill to be introduced soon and we would have a continuation of what the Minister now admits must be a serious problem, the wholesale purchase of land by non-nationals. Is there any reason why this should not have been included in the Land Bill ?
I do not want to embarrass the Minister by producing a copy of the Dáil debate in respect of the occasion when a Labour amendment was discussed in which we sought that the purchase of land by non-nationals be restricted to land required for industrial purposes or park-land, where a house is bought, not to exceed 10 acres. I do not think I can be accused of misrepresenting the proposed section if I say that it bears a remarkable resemblance to the amendment which was introduced in this House by the Labour Party—and you should hear the things the Minister said about that amendment. You should hear the comments he made about how utterly ridiculous it was to suggest that anything like that could be included in a Land Bill and how utterly useless it was to introduce proposals to end a problem which, he said, did not exist. I do not want to embarrass the Minister by producing the evidence but I suggest that he or some of his advisers might have a look at the record and avoid a similar mistake again.
It was said here, and I want to repeat it now, that in certain areas of this country there is wholesale purchase of land by non-nationals and that the usual procedure is that one man comes in and buys a farm and then throws his eyes around and sees one which will suit some of his friends, his brothers or his sisters or somebody else, and, bit by bit, areas such as those in County Meath, where the best land of the country is and which unfortunately is still in large farms, have, over the past three or four years, been bought up by those people. Around the area where I live the position has become a laughing stock. Nobody may bid for farms because there is always a non-national to top the highest bid whether it is public or private. I compliment the Minister on having the decency, when he knew it was a problem that should be dealt with, to introduce this section.
I do not agree with the suggestion that the buying of land by non-nationals can be stopped by a fine of £100 or £200. Imprisonment is also added but we know quite well that when the courts hear these cases they do not like to put those fellows in jail. They have a lot of money and they will fight it to the last court in the land. Would the Minister suggest that a fine of £100 is any worry to a man who is prepared to pay £80,000 for a farm which, to an Irishman, may be worth not more than £40,000 or £50,000 ? Does the Minister suggest that, when the 25 per cent stamp duty was not sufficient to stop them, they can be stopped by token fines such as are suggested here? I have not seen it in the Bill but I agree with Deputy Dillon that the one way to stop it is to make all such purchases null and void. Somebody remarked that a fine of £1,000 is provided. Again, I pose the question: what difference does a fine of £1,000 make to somebody who can find £80,000? Does £1,000 here or there matter very much to such a person?
I would ask the Minister to have another look at this. I believe that the only way it can be stopped is by cancelling out completely any purchase of land by those people except with the express written consent of the Land Commission.
It is suggested here that land could be transferred in certain cases to members of a family in a will. Again, I would suggest to the Minister to have a second look at this. It does not matter whether the grandson or the step-brother of a present owner is a non-national, he or she can be in the very same position as somebody who has just come into the country for the first time. They are either national or non-national and there should be no halfway mark.
A very interesting question posed by Deputy Dillon is the question of "town". I understand that in the interpretation of Acts the Irish version takes precedence. If that is so, then "baile" I assume will be the term used. Every little townland in the country is Bally this, that or the other. Would the Minister take a look at that and so prevent an awful lot of ambiguity when the Act eventually comes to be interpreted?
I am glad to see this section introduced. I believe the Minister can improve it a lot. From the length of the section, it is clear that it must have been an awful job to stop all the holes that had to be stopped in order to ensure that it would work at all. No matter what way we take it, we must remember that the object is to prevent a further peaceful infiltration of this country by the people I have referred to because already it has gone much too far.
My only regret is that one portion of our amendment was not included by the Minister: retrospection is not included here. I should like to see not alone those who have come in in the past 12 months but people who will break their necks to buy land in this country before this Bill is finally an Act caught in the net and the land taken from them and given to the people of this country for whom it was originally intended and who are the only people entitled to it.
The seriousness of this problem has for a long time been stressed by this side of the House. The purchase of land in rural Ireland by aliens has caused very great concern to the Fine Gael Party and I cannot but be glad at the great conversion of Fianna Fáil, completely and entirely, to Fine Gael's view in relation to this matter. At every election, we see Fianna Fáil dressing up very sprucely and nicely in Fine Gael clothing. This is a typical example. Fianna Fáil has awakened to the seriousness of this matter and now realises the commonsense and intelligent approach of the Fine Gael Party to it.
The amount of land purchased by aliens in this country is astonishing. I am quite satisfied that the Land Commission or even the Revenue Commissioners have not to this day a true and accurate picture of the amount of our land that has fallen into the hands of aliens over the past few years. The problem has become so great that not alone have the NFA and other organisations made their own protests but the problem has now reached the stage at which the Government admit and realise that it is serious.
When this Bill was first introduced in this House, many Deputies in the Fine Gael and Labour Parties demonstrated the seriousness of the purchase of land by aliens. At that time the Minister and, indeed, most members of his Party publicly stated that it was not a serious problem, that it was being kept under review by the Land Commission and that it did not call for any serious action. I put it to the House that if the Fine Gael Private Members' Bill had been accepted and approved by the Government in 1961, the serious problem that has arisen since then would not now have reached the colossal dimensions which it has reached. If the Galway bye-election has done nothing else for us to date except extract this pronouncement from the Minister for Agriculture that it was the Government's intention now to deal with the problem of the purchase of land by aliens and to tighten up the regulations by the new section, which the Minister for Lands has now brought in, at least it has done some good.
I should like to inquire from the Minister, although I know he certainly will evade the reply, why he did not make some comment on this? He did not make any comment at all. He left it to the Minister for Agriculture to go down to Loughrea and announce the Government's intention in relation to this matter. I feel that the Minister for Lands could not have addressed himself to this matter seriously when he did not have regard to his own failure and the failure of his Department to recognise long ago that this was a serious matter.
Fine Gael told the Minister so in 1961 because we had our experience in the late 1950's and in 1960 of the colossal amount of land that was being purchased in this country by foreigners. At that time we asked them to go to it and to do then what they are doing today but they failed to do so. I venture to say if they had taken the action in 1961, which they are taking today, there are many large tracts of good land in this country in the occupation and ownership of aliens that would be in the hands of the many local deserving applicants for land in this country.
The Minister was known to say time and time again, when the Fine Gael Party asked for a register to be kept in the Land Commission of the purchase of Irish lands by non-nationals, that such a register could not produce good results and that the Land Commission already knew of these purchases. The details furnished by the Minister for Lands were in accordance with the survey published by the NFA, who set up a special committee to deal with the seriousness of this problem. I really feel, even more strongly than Deputy Dillon, on this. He said the Government are now deciding to close the stable door when part of the horse has gone. I really feel the Government are now closing the stable door when the horse has galloped a long way because the land is not there now.
Surely the Minister for Lands recalls that the late German ambassador, when addressing his own people, advised Germans in their own interest, not to embark on the purchase of agricultural land in this country. He displayed great public interest in doing so. He realised his duty and he realised the seriousness of the land problem in this country. I have referred on more than one occasion to the very worthy and creditable advice which the former German ambassador gave to his own people. I feel this advice was very commendable. This man had been here in this country. He realised that there was not enough land here to meet the demand of the many native applicants and he most certainly took the first available opportunity of advising his own countrymen in Germany not to embark on the purchase of agricultural land in this country because he realised that it was creating a great social problem. I feel that his statement is one that certainly deserves the greatest praise and commendation by everybody.
The question of the purchase of land by aliens has given rise in many parts of this country to very serious forms of land agitation. I feel that the section, which the Minister is now including in this Bill, will certainly curb future land sales to aliens. What is going to happen about the land which has already been purchased ? I feel the time has come when the Land Commission ought now at this very late stage examine the details submitted to them by the Revenue Commissioners or their own inspectorate and see what can be done about the large amount of land which is at present in the ownership of aliens in this country.
I am quite satisfied that the Minister has not, at any time, given this House a true and accurate account of the seriousness of this matter because he has not, at any time, had correct statistics before him. We of the Fine Gael Party always welcome converts to our view and I feel that the greatest possible welcome that we can give should be extended to the Minister for Lands for embarking on a part of Fine Gael policy. This is something for which we certainly can take some credit and pride because it was achieved as a result of the Fine Gael Party focussing public opinion on the seriousness of this matter. It is of great national importance that we have succeeded in this and that the Minister and the Government have wakened up and have now decided to do something about this, even though I feel it is too late. They have at least realised that the question of the purchase of lands by aliens is a serious matter.
I would have preferred if the Government a long time ago had taken steps to prevent entirely and completely the purchase of land by aliens but I hope that when this new section becomes part of our new legislation we will have heard the end for all time of the purchase of land in this country by foreigners. I am quite satisfied that our smallholders throughout this country have a very genuine grievance. Many of our farmers' sons and many of our smallholders, who had to emigrate to seek employment in Britain and elsewhere, certainly have a very genuine grievance in so far as the purchase of land by aliens is concerned. Many of them had to leave their holdings because of the very small dimensions of their property. It is most regrettable that they had to go and be denied a standard of living in their own land and, at the same time, see wealthy farmers coming here and buying up the cream of Ireland's land.
I am glad the Government have at last realised the seriousness of this matter, to see their conversion at this late stage to the ideas of Fine Gael. This is very welcome, and I hope and trust the Minister will have the courage at last to stand up and say: "I said Fine Gael were wrong in 1961 and that there was no problem. I now see the folly of my statement. The problem is there and we now appreciate the advice and assistance we have received from the Fine Gael Party in focussing public attention on this matter. I am now taking the advice offered by Fine Gael, and I am sorry I did not do it in the interests of Ireland's landowners in 1961."
That is the kind of speech of repentance this House is owed by the Minister for Lands. Not alone is this House owed such public repentance but the country is, and more particularly are those who are far from the shores of this country and who have made efforts to obtain portions of large tracts of land now in the ownership of aliens. The fact that so many acres of land have fallen into the hands of foreigners is entirely due to the inactivity of the Minister for Lands and the Fianna Fáil Party and their failure to realise that this matter is one of great national importance and urgency.
However, it is better late than never, although I am very much afraid that any land which was on the public market for purchase by aliens has already been purchased. The big purchases of land by aliens have in recent months been considerably slowed up simply because the amount of land on the public market for such people has now been exhausted. I should like the Minister to indicate to the House what steps he proposes to take in relation to the lands in the hands of aliens for the past three or four years. It is only in the past three or four years, and particularly since 1960, that we have seen great tracts of land falling into what I would describe as undesirable hands. Many of those people are buying land for the purpose of spending their money. They are not coming here for love of this country or for the purpose of producing fodder for man and beast here. They are land speculators, coming to see what they can make out of it.
As well as that, when they become aware of uncertainty and insecurity on the Continent, they come and buy up large tracts of land in this country. I recall the words of James Fintan Lalor when he said: "The soil of Ireland for the people of Ireland to have and to hold from God alone who gave it." It has taken Fianna Fáil a long time to realise the wisdom of the writings of James Fintan Lalor, and the action which the Minister now takes under this new section is one in which he will have our support and co-operation.
We have been advocating this line of action for a long time and it is only in recent weeks that a group supporting the Minister for Agriculture has been responsible for bringing about this great change. Whether it was the Lemass group, the Smith group or the Haughey group, we appreciate their efforts and we hope, as a result of their efforts, there will be a change of heart on the part of the Land Commission and the Minister for Lands in relation to the purchase of land by aliens. This is something which has our complete and entire approval.
Having listened to the last three speakers, it occurs to me that Deputies on all sides of the House seem to be of one mind regarding the non-national or alien buying Irish land. If I thought for one moment that the introduction of this Bill would not remedy this disaster, and I call it a disaster, I would be against it. I am quite satisfied this Bill is a step in the right direction in that regard. I feel also, and have no political bias in saying this, that this Bill was much maligned up and down the country heretofore.
When I look around me in County Westmeath, with Deputy Dillon. Deputy Flanagan and Deputy Tully, I see large farms of land taken over not alone yearly but monthly and weekly, by people who are not Irish, or by people whose names are not Irish, people with names such as Prodinsky, Palm and Macklenberg. It is time the Government woke up and introduced a Bill to stop this practice. I was born and reared on the land on a small farm down in North Longford where the average valuation is £5. I came to live in Westmeath later to farm on a larger scale, through my own endeavours, and to live in a part of Leinster where the holdings are larger. But time and time again for the past three years, since I came to Dáil Éireann, I have gone to the various offices of the Land Commission, down the country and here in Dublin, and I have approached the Minister, about cases of what I would call real congestion. I should like to inform the Minister, and I am sure he knows it as well as I do, that there is congestion in both Longford and Westmeath just as in the west of Ireland. It is a sad reflection that while the congestion I mentioned exists, at the same time those people are coming into the country and, like the planters of old, they are not going into the bogs, the moors or the mountains but buy the best tracts of land available on the market.
There is another point I should like to make. Some of those in public life who derided the action of Irish auctioneers and agents and others and people who spoke from the housetops about this disaster, as I already called it, were some of the first to yield to the pressure of the people who came into this country with what I would call blood money. As I said, I am entirely for the Bill if it stops that practice. I have heard it debated by county councils, county committees of agriculture, in the Dáil and at other levels. We have provisions in the Bill which no good, sound farmer has any reason to fear. Any farmer who works on his land, whether it be behind or before his house, has nothing to fear from this measure.
Both Deputy Tully and I know that the big tracts of valuable land in this country are in Westmeath, Meath and other such counties. Deputy Flanagan last night asked the Minister about stud farms and I agree that by all means we should preserve them. The bloodstock industry is one of our main sources of money from outside. However, you have the position where Lord so-and-so comes in from Britain, France or Germany and buys a big tract of land. He immediately puts up "The Ballymacnanty Stud" on the gate and he becomes an untouchable. How is the Minister to decide what is to be done about that?
It does not matter very much to me whether the Minister for Lands is a member of Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil, but I am glad to see all sides of the House agreeing on one aspect of this business, that nobody wants to see the land of Ireland going to foreigners for what I have described as blood money. Our land is too valuable and costs too much to be given away in that manner. This Bill will enable the Land Commission to take over large estates and divide them into 45-acre or 50-acre holdings on which to settle Irishmen, whether their names be Joyce, McManus or Sheridan. If we succeed in doing that, we shall have done a good day's work for the country. We shall be putting men and their families in a Christian way of life, on a sound footing, in a position where they will be of good to the community and, above all, where they will no longer be mendicants, deprived of all State services because they happen to have a few miserable acres of land.
That is about all I have to say on the Bill. As I stated at the beginning, if it stops the disaster we have been experiencing during the years I am all for it. If I thought for one moment that it would penalise even one good, sound, practical farmer in any way, I would be entirely against it.
Deputies Dillon and Flanagan seemed to be very concerned about the Fianna Fáil convention in East Galway and the statement made at it by the present Minister for Agriculture. It was an important occasion because there were more than 600 men and women there from every part of that constituency, assembled to select Tom Hussey. An occasion such as that, a democratic process held in the open to select a man in the ordinary way by public acclaim of his Party, constitutes a most fitting occasion for an announcement of that kind. You could not make it in a back room in Dublin when the sole remaining member of Clann na Talmhan was selling out his late colleague's seat to the Fine Gael Party. That would not have been a proper occasion for the making of such an announcement. The Government have collective responsibility under the Constitution and this was a matter for the Government. Each and every Minister is responsible for decisions in that Government. It is the way this Government works.
Deputy Dillon complains about my reception of the Bill he introduced in 1961 and tries to suggest that had that Bill been accepted, it would in some way have been effective to deal with the question of non-nationals acquiring land in this country. The Bill was a very short one, very badly drafted, but my main comments on it were that it was a completely innocuous measure, that it would not make one acre of land available for the relief of congestion, that it would not materially strengthen the Land Commission procedure for the acquisition of land.
That Bill called for a type of register to be established to keep track of dealings in land by non-nationals, without any enabling provisions, and completely overlooking the fact that we had established in that year under the Finance Act a statutory register to be kept by the Land Commission to record sales to non-nationals. Let me repeat, because Deputy Flanagan keeps repeating untruths in the hope that if he keeps repeating them long enough, they will be believed outside, that there is a statutory register established under the Finance Act, of 1961, kept in the Land Commission and that in that register any dealings in land on which the 25 per cent stamp duty has been paid—purchases of land by aliens for industrial or non-industrial purposes—are kept under a law of this House.
In that register the amount of the transactions for non-industrial purposes has been running at between 6,000 and 7,000 acres a year. There was a dramatic addition in the last year by virtue of the fact that a mountain down in North Mayo was purchased by a non-national. It consisted of between 5,000 acres and 6,000 acres but the valuation of the land was twopence an acre. That gives an indication of the wrong picture being painted as to the extent of the purchase of land by non-nationals.
At all events, the figure has been running at approximately the same acreage, according to the Land Commission records, from 6,000 to 7,000 acres a year. In some of these cases, there have been dealings in land acquired by one non-national and sold to another. We shall have repetition of that at all times. When we take into account the fact that we are supposed to have 12 million acres of arable land, the figure I have given will be a rough indication of the amount of these transactions. Let me emphasise that while, outside the register, there are some suspicious cases, I am satisfied there could be no widespread evasion. I suspect a few devices that may have been used. I have appealed time and again to Deputies that if there was any particular case in which they had their suspicions to let me know, but except in one case I have had no reports from Deputies—even from Deputy Flanagan, who is so vocal on this matter and professes to know so much about it.
I have said on numerous occasions that, if at any stage the Government felt further steps should be taken to deal with this matter, they would take such steps. I would not follow the lines of the innocuous Bill introduced by Deputy Dillon in 1961. From an administrative point of view, the Land Commission would be in a better position to keep full control of this issue than the Revenue Commissioners. Because of the machinery they have, they can make the control more effective. Deputy Flanagan said the horse had left the stable when the control was coming. As I said, I have no evidence of any widespread evasion of the existing law.
Deputy Flanagan quoted Fintan Lalor at me. I suggest he quote it at some members of the Fine Gael Executive, like Senator L'Estrange or ex-Senator John L. O'Sullivan of Cork, and some of these high officers of his own Party who were not averse to making a deal with non-nationals when they had land to sell. That is the hypocrisy Deputy Flanagan is preaching.
Deputy Dillon made a point about the definition of a town. As this section stands I think that needs looking into to see if the definition meets the purposes of this Bill. Conceivably someone might claim certain lands were in a town for the purpose of avoiding this section when, in fact, they were not. I wish the House to understand that I am moving this section on the basis of the known understanding of what a town is. If I find, going through the law between now and Report Stage, that the section as it stands would not be effective, I will bring in a suitable amendment.
Would the Minister recall that in regard to paragraph 10, I referred to laying the regulations on the Table ?
I am glad the Deputy reminded me. I see the Deputy's point. I have no objection to accepting the proposition that such regulations should be laid on the Table of the House and I will meet the Deputy on Report Stage by providing that any such regulations will be laid on the Table.
Deputy Tully apparently misunderstands some of the provisions here. In terrorem penalties are being provided of up to £1,000 and up to three years' imprisonment for breaches of any portion of this section. The Deputy asked what was this to somebody with a lot of money. I think the prospect of three years in jail is poor comfort for any of these people. The Deputy apparently does not understand that, in addition to these penalties, the purchase is rendered null and void by virtue of the fact that the Land Commission's consent was not sought before it went through.
Hear, hear.
Is that clear in the new section ?
It is.
I cannot find it in the section.
The way the section is put is that any of these people, who are not excepted people under the section, must have the prior consent of the Land Commission to their purchase. The legal effect of that is that, if they do not do that, if they use any of the devices I have suggested or if they refuse to give an account to the Land Commission, the transaction is rendered void.
I know I have not the Minister's legal training but I cannot find this in the section. It simply says that they shall be subject to a fine or imprisonment, but it does not say they will also forfeit the land. That is the point I want to get clear.
Subsection 2 (a) states:
Notwithstanding any other enactment or any rule of law, but subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection and to subsection (3) of this section, no interest in land to which this section applies shall become vested in a person who is not a qualified person except with the written consent (whether general or particular) of the Land Commission and subject to any conditions attached to the consent having been complied with.
If he is not a qualified person, if he does not get the consent of the Land Commission, no interest in land to which the section applies vests in him. That means that without the consent of the Land Commission, land, or any interest in it, does not legally vest in the individual. He is deprived of his title to it.
If the Minister is satisfied that covers the point, that is all right with me, but it appears to me that it leaves the position so that the penalty imposed for non-compliance is a fine or imprisonment.
The Deputy may rest assured that in addition to the penalties provided, such an individual will find himself completely divested of his title to the land in question. That is the legal position.
Deputy Tully said that I was rather scathing in dealing with his amendment. I have since re-read what I have said and I suggest he should re-read it also. I think that if he does, he will be prepared to withdraw his remarks. He proposed that :
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.
There were two legs to the Deputy's amendment and I devoted most of my opposition to the proposal limiting the ownership of land by one individual or trust to 150 acres. I pointed out that any man with 150 acres should be able to live and rear a family on it but that you would have some cases where the wife or the son had other land. I said that it was wrong to deal with the matter by attempting to ration land by putting in this overall limit on ownership.
The instance I have just quoted is a typical example of how the Deputy's amendment would be unworkable. Here you have 5,000 or 7,000 acres, the valuation of which is 2d. an acre. That demonstrates that it would be impossible in practice to work out a system whereby there is an overall control on individual ownership of 150 acres.
I want to reiterate that there is no evidence, as far as we know, of widespread evasion of the law except what we suspect in a few instances. The changing of the form of control was decided on as being most desirable from the administrative point of view and more effective than the law as it stands which is being operated by the Revenue Commissioners.
Let me repeat on this section what I have said here on a number of occasions: if people are prepared to take the risk and deliberately sign false documents for the purpose of evading stamp duty, they may get away with it for a while. Even under this section, if completely false statements are sworn, if people are prepared to go so far to evade the law, they may get away with it for a while but if they are caught, it will be a very serious and expensive business for them, both under this law and under the existing law. I feel, however, that the acceptance of this section will stop the many wild allegations that are being made inside and outside the House about alleged foreign invasion. When we ask those who make the allegations to give instances, we can get no evidence of this foreign invasion. Here, under the Land Commission, we shall have an additional form of control and through our country inspectorate, we shall be in a better position to keep track of suspicious cases than the Department of Finance, under which the Revenue Commissioners operate.
The Minister implies that he now realises that this is a matter which at all times should have been under the control of the Department of Lands rather than the Revenue Commissioners. He says the true dimensions of the problem should come to light through the instrumentality of the Land Commission and their field inspectors. I could not agree more. That is exactly the view we expressed on the introduction of the 1961 Bill. On that occasion in volume 188, at column 1734, the Minister for Lands is on record as saying, while I was speaking on the Bill:
May I interrupt ? When explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, I said that it is proposed the Revenue Commissioners will keep the Land Commission informed of purchases by non-national interests. In that way the Land Commission will be in a position to assemble the essential information. Surely that will meet the purpose the Deputy has in mind quite effectively.
I said it would not three years ago; the Minister for Lands says three years later that he has discovered it would not, and that it is much wiser to lay this duty squarely on the shoulders of the Land Commission. That is the advantage of planning your progress. If you plan intelligently, you do not wait three years to learn these facts. You act in anticipation and then the problems you have to deal with very often do not arise.
I think it important on occasions like this to call to mind that we are not the only country trying to deal with the problem of aliens buying agricultural land. The purchase of agricultural land has been for many years prohibited in the Channel Islands; Switzerland has now prohibited the purchase of agricultural or building land by anybody; the great United States in many of its States require the sale of lands registered in foreign ownerships to American nationals. Quite apart from the actual legislative requirements, the feeling has grown so strong in many parts of the US against foreign ownership of land, that some very great corporations with vast tracts of land in these states have been constrained to sell them. The same problem has given rise to a great deal of social unrest in many parts of South America and, indeed, I believe, in France. We are concerned to avoid the development of a similar social problem in this country which we saw was coming, of which we warned the Government and at this eleventh hour, they now have proceeded to act upon our warning in the amendment produced for consideration by the Dáil today.
I think it is interesting and requires to be further emphasised what Deputy Tully has said here today that after all the hullaballoo about the protracted debate that has taken place on the Land Bill, this fact stands out that if this Bill had not been subjected in Committee to the long and careful scrutiny to which it has been subjected, section 44 would never have seen the light of day.
Section 44 was produced at the Fianna Fáil convention in East Galway and I think the Minister should acknowledge the debt he owes us for scrutinising this Bill as closely as we have. We have succeeded in converting him to the point of persuading him to introduce this new section 44 and I do not yet despair that between now and the Final Stages of the Bill, we will persuade him to eradicate the detestable provision whereunder he seeks the power to inspect for acquisition the land of any man in the country on his own initiative without reference to the Land Commission and certain other features of the Bill to which we have made reference.
Lastly, I want to say this: I understand the Minister's guilty reaction to the fact that of this radical alteration of his own Bill the first announcement was made at a convention in East Galway by somebody who was not the Minister for Lands but a Minister of another Department of State. That, naturally, produces an irascible reaction from the Minister for Lands but there is, I suggest, an important principle here at stake. The practice of members of the Fianna Fáil Government presenting policy statements to dinners, dances, suppers and conventions and in a variety of venues outside the Oireachtas is a bad practice, and it is a bad practice for this reason: our whole system of Government is based upon free and open debate in this House, under great privilege which, I am sorry to say, is sometimes abused, but all the machinery of this House is designed to keep our people informed not only of the Government's view but of any legitimate comment upon that view. If we are to continue the practice which Fianna Fáil have adopted of making announcements of radical changes in Fianna Fáil Government policy at dinners, dances, dog fights and social occasions of one kind or another or at Fianna Fáil conventions, these statements of policy are not subjected to the proper criticism, review and investigation to which they should be subjected for the information of the people, who are entitled to know the facts.
I suggest to the Minister for Lands that, while I understand his indignant attempt to justify the announcement of this amendment to his own Bill by another Minister at a Fianna Fáil convention, he would be well advised to urge on his colleagues that that practice should be dropped and that where the Government wish to submit new policy proposals for legislation, they ought to submit them first to Dáil Éireann and then, at their pleasure, in any other arena where they consider it proper to do so.
I am glad the Minister proposes to look into the suggestion I have made to him for the technical correction of this amendment in regard to the word "town" and in regard to regulations, and I suggest to him that he should reflect on the fact that he is on record as saying here in the Official Reports of 1961 that he thought the Revenue Commissioners procedure was fully adequate to do all that was necessary. He has discovered three years too late that he was mistaken in that view. I think—and I would like to put this on record—that if you deal with a problem of this kind in time, you can often use relatively mild legislative procedures because they act not only as a statutory control but as a clear warning to everybody of what the declared policy of the Oireachtas is. If you allow these situations to develop until they constitute a real and serious social evil, you are often driven to the extreme of drafting extremely difficult complex legislative devices to control a situation which should never have been allowed to arise. If in 1961 we had said: "We are going to set up a register in the Land Commission. If any alien buys land, however he does it, and fails to register all the facts with the Land Commission for review and consideration by them, no good title in the land will pass", I believe a great many transactions that have taken place and that have created considerable social upset in rural Ireland would never have taken place. However, there is no use crying over split milk and it is better to act late than not to act at all.
I am glad the Government have come round to our point of view. I am glad we are now in a position to place it on record for all who run to read that it is contrary to national policy that arable land should pass into the ownership of aliens and I think it is important to emphasise that in publicly recording that decision and giving everybody full notice of it, we are not acting exceptionally, that we are simply doing what a great many other countries have done when they found themselves confronted with the problem that now confronts us.
I wish merely to make a couple of brief comments. First of all, with reference to the place where the statement was made and by whom it was made, I want to place on record that I do not care, nor do my Party, if it was the secretary of one of the three-man cumainn, of the Minister's Party, a number of which operate in my constituency, providing the Minister is prepared to stand over it in this House. If he is taking responsibility for it, it does not matter who made the statement.
Secondly, the Minister was rather naive in his comment about the whole question of the purchase of land because he has spent most of his time here today talking about the evasion of stamp duty. While I and other people speaking about this Bill over the past months did refer to what we consider to be an abuse and stated that we understood there were purchases of land on which the 25 per cent stamp duty was not paid, I want to make it clear that if there were 100 per cent stamp duty paid by everyone of the non-nationals who have come in to purchase land—and I am sure the Government would not object to that; it might be of extreme assistance to them at the present time in view of the figures for the balance of payments we have been hearing about over the past few days — we still believe it would be wrong to allow this racket to continue.
Thirdly, the Minister referred to the amendment which the Labour Party put in and which was debated in this House. Again, he was rather naive because he referred only to one section of it and replied to one section of it here. He, I understand, sincerely believed at that time and still believes that that portion of the amendment was wrong, that is, that a person should not be allowed to purchase an extra amount of land which would allow that person to have more than 150 acres. We put that in because, if the Minister thinks of a 40 to 45 acre farm as a viable farm, it was a reasonable thing to expect that those who had got 150 acres should not be allowed to get more. But he did not explain here why it was that at that period the Government did not decide, as they could have, to adopt the other two parts of the amendment, the first one limiting the amount of arable land which could be bought by aliens to ten acres in the event of its being purchased for the purpose of residence; and the second one providing that only land being acquired for industrial purposes could be bought by non-nationals. Surely it could have been done then as it has been done now.
Again, I think everybody who is interested in this problem will thank Dáil Éireann for the way in which they succeeded in holding this Bill and not allowing the various sections to go through until the Minister and his Government realised that some steps had to be taken. They have taken them now and I hope they will be effective.
Under Deputy Dillon's proposal here in 1961, there was provision only for registering transactions in the Land Commission and, indeed, the way the Bill was framed the whole of Ireland could be bought by non-nationals so long as they reported to the Land Commission.
This is not a drastic change of policy by the Government. The Government decided long ago that there should be control in connection with these transactions and they provided that control under the Finance Act of 1961 under which these very severe penalties were provided for non-nationals purchasing agricultural land. That decided the issue of control. It provided also for the keeping of this statutory register by the Land Commission so that we would have an official account of each and every transaction of land purchased by non-nationals. It was the first time that was done under the law of this House. There were a number of checks made from time to time away back to the time Deputy Dillon was in Government but these checks were rough and ready affairs and they were ineffective.
There was one check made, I remember, where the Guards were asked to report on cases where more than 100 acres of land were bought in different counties by non-nationals. But there was no legal, official method of control until the Government decided under the Finance Act of 1961 to establish these controls and to establish for the first time this statutory register to be kept by the Land Commission in which is recorded from week to week or from month to month the various purchases of land by aliens, whether for industrial or other purposes. Under that section certain aliens, can be exempted by a certificate from two of the Lay Commissioners of the Land Commission to the Minister for Finance allowing these people to pay the ordinary stamp duty in cases in which the Land Commission are not interested or in the case of what I describe as "white elephant" purchases.
That is the law that is there. This is simply extending that control or dealing with control by a different method. The only real necessity for this is the allegations that have been made, although by people, as I say, who will not produce evidence, about the ways that have been found for avoiding the existing law. It is difficult under a Finance Act to cover every conceivable type of evasion that could arise. If Deputies will go to the trouble of re-reading all these many sections of the Finance Act of 1961 dealing with this question, they will see how wide the net was spread to cover all transactions. However, I have been told from some source that some few people are avoiding the existing law. Again, I am not in a position to say but I personally doubt whether the device they have been using is not a fraud and that they are not and may not be liable to be prosecuted under the existing law. At all events, this section is more comprehensive in the sense——
The £10,000 for the cattle and £5,000 for the farm.
Yes. It is more comprehensive and it deals not alone with devices that we suspect may have been used but also any device that we ourselves may think up might be attempted to avoid the existing law. In that sense it is just an extension of the existing controls and it is more comprehensive and must accordingly be more effective than the provisions of the 1961 Finance Act.
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 19, before section 44, to insert the following section:
Section 17 of the Land Act, 1953, is hereby amended by the insertion, after "registered owners" in subsection (2), of "or have become entitled to be registered as owners".
As I explained in connection with section 20, I have sought to improve the provisions of the Land Acts relating to the exchange of holdings and especially those complex groups of exchanges which we call re-arrangements.
The purpose of the present amendment is to ensure that the Land Commission will be able to re-allot and revest lands given up in exchange without waiting until they have themselves become registered as owners of such lands. Deputies will appreciate that re-arrangement work would be intolerably slow if every step had to wait upon the noting by Land Registry of the changes brought about by the previous step. It is usually important and often vital that the whole process of rearrangement in a townland should be carried through in one operation without waiting upon the less urgent, though admittedly important, work of adjusting the records to reflect the changes on the ground. In practice, where a migrant is brought up, he is immediately vested in his new holding and he transfers the old one to the Land Commission who divide it among the allottees in the place he has left. It is necessary that this work should go ahead and the Land Commission could have been held up until the vesting took place. That is the purpose of this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 44 and 45 agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 44a:
In page 19, after
|
“9 Edw. 7. c. 42. |
Irish Land Act, 1909. |
Section 32.” |
to insert
|
“9 & 10 Geo. 5. c. 82. |
Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919 |
Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 2.” |
The first seven items for repeal are associated with section 12 of the Bill. They represent the old system of subdivision control and they are explained in the memorandum circulated to Deputies. In section 12 of the Bill, we have a new overall provision for the control of subdivision and subletting. There is a provision in the repeal Schedule for the demolition of the existing legal machinery and the first seven items in the Schedule represent the main body of the existing law. A member of my own profession put it to me that I should take this opportunity to repeal a clause in the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, which deals with control of sales and subdivisions. I am informed this provision did not apply to more than 360 holdings so that this is of no significance to the vast majority of landowners. Nevertheless, it is an out-dated piece of legislation and it could cause annoyance and difficulties for solicitors who are dealing with these few odd cases. I propose accordingly that it be added to the list of items for repeal.
What is the effect of the repeal of section 32 of the Birrell Act of 1909?
It deals with the limitation of total advances to £7,000.
I always thought the Birrell Act was primarily designed to provide for compulsory acquisition against Lord Clanricarde. It was under that Act we caught him.
This is the 1909 Act:
As between the Land Commission and the proprietor for the time being of any holding for the purchase of which the Land Commission have, after the passing of this Act, made any advance under the Land Purchase Acts, the following conditions shall be imposed in addition to the conditions mentioned in section fifty-four of the Act of 1903, namely :—
(a) The proprietor shall not without the consent of the Land Commission acquire by purchase any other holding for the purchase of which an advance has been made under the Land Purchase Acts if the amount of that advance then outstanding, when added to the amount of the advance or advances made in respect of the holding or holdings then held by the proprietor would exceed the sum of seven thousand pounds, and, if any proprietor acquires any holding in violation of this condition, the Land Commission may cause that holding to be sold.
That is completely unworkable now and it is outdated in present circumstances. That is why we propose to get rid of it.
Do I understand that the Birrell Act provided that, if you held a holding of land from the Land Commission in respect of which there was an annuity of £4,000 and you bought another holding of land in respect of which there was an annuity of £4,000, the Land Commission could direct you to sell one of the holdings; but, if you bought a second holding of land, the annuity of which was only £2,900, making a joint annuity of £6,900, then the Land Commission had no power to direct you to sell?
Yes. It dealt with advances.
Is there any estate in respect of which there is an annuity payable to the Land Commission of over £7,000?
These are not annuities. They are advances under the Land Acts.
The position now is that, if you hold land in respect of which an advance of £4,000 has been made by the Land Commission and you buy another holding in respect of which £5,000 has been advanced by the Land Commission, the Land Commission can direct you to sell one of the holdings as the law stands and the purpose of this proposal is to make an end of that so that people can now buy an accumulation of holdings? I cannot really think why we are making an end of it. Why is it thought desirable at this stage to change the law in this respect?
It must be the suggestion that the farms are too small. The Taoiseach waxed very eloquent about this.
A farm in respect of which £4,000 was originally advanced is not a small one.
Consolidation.
Why is it deemed expedient to repeal this now?
In the first place, this was never workable; neither could I ever conceive it to be workable. Deputies can imagine the Land Commission trying to sell out some man under this section and going through the process of evicting him out of the farm. It could be represented superficially as the demolition of an existing ban on the conglomeration of holdings, but that is not the case in practice. No administration ever tried to keep track of all the transactions which might have led to technical breaches of this particular section. There must have been no thought for the endless possibilities of evasion. The penalty of selling them up was clearly unthinkable. The position would be that, if the Land Commission went down and followed up the two, three or four different holdings for the time being in the ownership of one landholder, they would find possibly that the land was bought with the intention of benefiting one or two sons; that was illegal under this particular section and the penalty provided was that the Land Commission had power to take one, or more, of these farms and eject the holder. As I have said, I could not conceive of any administration trying to work this section; it is unworkable and unrealistic in this day and age.
It has never been used?
No.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 19, in the third column, to delete "Subsection (1) and (2) of section 65" and insert "Paragraph (c) of subsection (6) of section 46; subsection (7) of section 46; subsections (1) and (2) of section 65."
Deputies will recall that in section 14 there is provision for a whole new system of appointing nominees to represent deceased or missing owners and this will in future take the place of old provisions relating to limited administrators and the like. Section 46 of the 1923 Act, the principal section under which exchanges are carried out, contained the provisions for the appointment, by the county court, as it was then called, of special representatives in cases involving exchanges. This arrangement was never resorted to and it will be quite unnecessary now and I propose to clear it out of my way. The new provisions will be much more effective.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 19, in the third column, after "Subsection (1) of section 15", to insert ";subsection (3) of section 17".
When dealing with section 20, I explained how in this Bill and the recent Registration of Titles Act, we were seeking to tidy up a number of points relating to fixed orders, Land Commission exchanges and changes in the register resulting from various Land Commission dealings. As part of this process, subsection (3) of section 17 of the 1953 Act has ceased to have any significance and I propose that it be added to the repeal list.
Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage?
Tuesday week.
Very well; if we are not ready we can postpone it.
I think Tuesday week would be reasonable.
If the Minister is circulating amendments, when may we expect to see them?
As soon as I possibly can next week.
We will have them before the end of next week?
I hope so.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, December 1st, 1964.