I do not agree with the first part of the amendment. I do not think it is right that the State should intervene to restrict the amount of property which any person should have. If we have reached the stage in this country when the State can decide that a person may own only 150 acres of land, we may soon reach the stage when we will take steps to limit the amount of money a person may have on deposit in his bank or to limit the amount of housing accommodation a family may have. This is a dangerous step, and I hope the Minister and the House will reject the principle of restriction on the amount of property which a person may or may not hold.
It is wrong, and very wrong, that the right of any individual to purchase or maintain any property, land or otherwise, should be restricted. If a person buys a substantial holding, whether it be 150, 80, or 400 acres, and pays for it, if he is a good citizen and works that land so that it will produce food for man and beast, if he gives good employment on it, the State should be very slow to intervene. Any action by the State to restrict the amount of property a person may own should be seriously contested. There is Civil Service and State interference which is inclined to handcuff and blindfold the individual. Soon the stage will be reached when one will have to get permission to breathe.
In this country the principle has been maintained that the individual has a right to purchase what he wishes. I would urge that that principle be maintained, more particularly when I see that no person or trust shall be permitted to purchase more than 150 statute acres of arable land.
What would happen in the case of a college or community requiring a substantial acreage of land for the maintenance of the community? There might be a case where a religious community would wish to purchase arable land to the extent of 200 acres. There are holdings of more than 150 acres which are held by farmers who may have three or four or five sons, who work the land well, who bought the property with hard-earned money, who are not under any compliment to the State, to their neighbours or to any individual. There are religious communities who have very large tracts of land which is being worked well.
It would be a great pity if steps were taken to restrict the rights of colleges, religious communities or anybody else in the acreage of land which they can own. One might as well set out to limit a man's income, to limit what he can earn, what he can spend, what he can save, what he can own. I hope that tendency will not be allowed to develop here. The tendency is for the State to restrict the individual.
In every democracy, the individual has rights and Parliament should protect and safeguard those rights. It would be wrong for us here to limit the amount of land a person may purchase. I would raise the same opposition to the proposal, irrespective of what limit Deputy Tully or the Labour Party would put. The amount of property which a person, a trust or a community may purchase should be left as a matter for themselves and should not be subject to restriction.
I now come to the next part of the amendment which says that non-nationals should not be permitted to purchase more than ten statute acres of arable land, except for industrial purposes. I am with the Labour Party on that to a certain extent. I am reminded of the very praiseworthy and good advice which the late German Ambassador to this country gave to his countrymen in his own country on the subject of the purchase of land in this country by Germans. The advice was not to purchase arable land in this country, that it would not be wise for them to do so, that it would not be in their own interests. Naturally, we always welcome foreign investment in this country. We welcome foreign industrialists and anyone who is coming here to carry out a scheme of development or to establish industry. This Party and any other Party would not oppose any foreigner coming in here for the purpose of purchasing industrial sites. That is why I am glad to see mention in the amendment of land for industrial purposes.
The advice I have quoted was good advice given by the German Ambassador to his own people. He knew that we have not sufficient land to meet the needs of the Irish people who are seeking that land. The German Ambassador was fully aware of the serious implications of aliens purchasing large tracts of land in this country. He knew that they would be bound to meet with a certain amount of disapproval. Neither the Land Commission nor the Minister for Lands today knows the seriousness of the problem that prevails at this very moment in regard to the purchase of Irish land by aliens.
I have viewed this Bill with great suspicion because in this Bill as circulated, there is not a single section that curtails or restricts the activities of aliens in the purchase of land. It is suggested that the 25 per cent tax payable by an alien in respect of the purchase of property here will curb the activities of such people in respect of land purchase. That is all nonsense. Even with the 25 per cent duty payable by aliens the land is still far cheaper here than it would be in their country of origin. Foreigners are coming here to buy large tracts of arable land to the dotriment of local smallholders and in many cases they have successfully wiped the eye of the Land Commission and in many cases where it can be established that there is a serious problem of congestion, lands were purchased by aliens.
On numerous occasions we have heard from the Minister for Lands that foreigners coming here to buy land were buying land which was of too poor quality for the Land Commission or forestry purposes, but when we get down to the statistics submitted to all Deputies by the NFA, which examined the problem, we find that there were large tracts of good arable land in the heart of the country that were purchased by aliens and the Land Commission not only turned the deaf ear but the blind eye to the local people and the people in the congested areas, who were anxious to obtain additions to their holdings, to the farmers' sons who were well prepared financially to work the land, if only they could get it.
I have no hesitation in saying that a little interference on the part of the State and on the part of the Department of Local Government would ensure that the principle enunciated by James Fintan Lalor was carried out, the principle of the land of Ireland for the people of Ireland, to have and to hold from God alone who made it.
The stage is being reached where there is a new invasion of this country by foreign landlords. There are foreigners coming in here and buying up good arable land, land adjacent to good fisheries, where there are entrances and rights of way to the seashore. Such a practice is wrong and should not be tolerated. If anybody has a claim on the land of this country, it is the Irish people. There is nothing in this Bill to ensure that the land of this country will be held for the people of this country. That is why I think that the least this amendment does is to give us an opportunity of expressing our disapproval of the manner in which the Government have allowed foreigners to come over here and buy up good land while the cream of Irish manhood is forced to emigrate to the US, Canada or Great Britain. Many of them are farmers' sons, born and reared on the land. Many of them have their names on the files of the Land Commission seeking additions to the small holdings from which they have emigrated.
All that is to the discredit of the Land Commission. It is something of which the Minister should take a serious view. For some reason, however, he always maintains that this problem is not a very serious one. No case has been established to bear out the Minister's statement that the land being purchased by these foreigners is the poorest quality land. They have purchased land in Meath, Laois, Offaly, Westmeath, Kilkenny and Tipperary. They have purchased large tracts of good land all over the country. The Minister knows the number of places in my constituency. He is negotiating there to purchase from a German a very extensive tract of land in an area of South Laois and North Kilkenny where there is very serious congestion. There should be some restriction in regard to the purchase of lands by aliens.
I do not subscribe to the first part of this amendment. I think it would be wrong to limit the amount of property any person should hold. If that were done, it would deprive a citizen of his right to enjoy the freedom to which he is entitled in a democracy. If he is a good citizen, if he has his own money and is prepared to pay for the property, and if he is working his land well, it would be wrong for the State to interfere in respect of the amount of property he can purchase.