asked the Minister for Lands the conditions under which foreign interests may by company promotion or other agency basis secure beneficial ownership or control of Irish land.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Foreign Ownership of Land.
38.
I would refer the Deputy to my reply to Question No. 20 of 10th February, 1971—Volume 251, columns 1002-1005 of the Official Report:
A foreign controlled company can only purchase non-urban land in this country if it has obtained:
(1) A certificate from the Land Commission that it has shown to the Land Commission's satisfaction that it is acquiring not more than five acres for private residential purposes.
(2) A certificate from the Department of Industry and Commerce that it has shown to the Minister's satisfaction that it is purchasing land exclusively for industrial purposes.
(3) Land Commission consent under section 45 (2) (a) Land Act, 1965. Where arable land is involved, such consent would be granted only in exceptional circumstances. The grant of consent is an "excepted matter" reserved to the Lay Commissioners.
An Irish controlled company must also get consent under section 45, Land Act, 1965.
The transfer of control of a company by means of a transfer of shares is governed by subsection (5) of section 45 of the Land Act, 1965. This provides, broadly, that if a company passes into the control of a non-qualified person, this fact must be reported to the Land Commission. The subsection further provides that should the Land Commission then institute acquisition proceedings for the land owned by the company the ordinary defences against acquisition would not apply.
Due to the complexity of Company law and structure this was the only practicable measure of control that could be devised. This provision was brought specially to the notice of the Dáil by the Minister for Lands in the course of the debate on the Committee Stage of the Land Bill, 1963; columns 1168 and 1169 of the Official Report of 19th November, 1964, are relevant.
Would the Minister not agree that when the Land Act, 1965, was passing through this House section 45 specifically excluded the purchase of land except under certain circumstances and with the permission of the Land Commission? Would the Minister not agree that the Land Commission did in fact interpret that as meaning that they had the right to allow anybody to acquire any size of a farm, which was never the intention of this House when the Bill was passing through?
In what way is the Deputy suggesting the intention was not carried out?
The intention was that the limit should be five acres or the amount necessary to start an industry, but the Land Commission have interpreted that to read that these people can acquire any amount of land provided they have the sanction of the Land Commission and the result of that has been the scandal, as disclosed in the newspapers some 12 months ago, of thousands of acres being acquired in each county which were outside what was the original intention in the Land Act.
I do not accept that what the Deputy is saying is correct.
That is not surprising.
I would remind the Deputy that at the time the allegation was made I asked the Deputy concerned—I cannot remember whether it was Deputy Tully—to furnish me or the Land Commission with details of the exact circumstances under which this land had been acquired by the manipulation of some loophole in the Act which, as was alleged in the House, existed. The Deputy has not given me any such details, in the absence of which I cannot accept that this loophole exists.
Does the Minister not remember that in reply to a question from me he submitted to me in writing details of thousands of acres that had been acquired outside the regulations of the 1965 Land Act and details of which, in fact, were published in the national newspapers? If he wishes, I shall send him a copy of the communications.