With the permission of the House, I should be glad to have these amendments from the Seanad accepted. Three of them are purely drafting amendments. One is the deletion of a sub-section and the others are to meet the requirements of drafting and procedure.
Administration of Estates Bill, 1957—From the Seanad.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
Of course, we shall get a more detailed explanation in the usual way?
I have given the only explanation I can. The Bill was discussed here and in the Seanad and all the explanations sought were given to the best of my ability. I have not any more explanations to give.
In that case I could not possibly agree. If they were to be dealt with in the ordinary way and explanations given, we would deal with it certainly. I want to deal with it amendment by amendment.
Right.
And there is no use in the Minister being peeved about it either.
There is nothing like keeping up the obstruction. I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:
SECTION 14.
In subsection (3), line 15, "for which the personal representative is accountable" inserted before "and".
I object violently to that remark by the Minister complaining of obstruction. I was asked last night as a matter of courtesy by the Government would I accept at short notice—and the Parliamentary Secretary can correct me if a word is wrong—that the amendments should be taken this morning. I agreed to that provided they were dealt with in the ordinary way. It is outrageous of the Minister now to suggest that that is obstruction. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether that is right or wrong.
After having agreed to give these this morning, the Deputy now demands explanations of the amendments, explanations which have been given already. However, I shall give the Deputy the explanations.
I am asking for the ordinary procedure to be adopted.
Amendment No. 1 is a drafting amendment designed to ensure that the administration bond will cover only those death duties for which the personal representative is accountable. The difference between real estate and personal estate for the purposes of death duties is explained in some detail in page 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum. Estate duty on real estate (including compulsorily registered land) is a charge on the estate itself, and is payable by the person entitled to the estate under the will or an intestacy. The personal representative is accountable for the estate duty on the personal estate, and he pays this duty out of the residuary personal estate. It has recently been advanced against subsection (3) that the subsection as drafted might be relied on to make the personal representative accountable for estate duty for which he is not at present accountable. If this were so, we would in fact be running contrary to the proposal in Section 8 to leave the law as to death duties as it is. The present amendment will clarify the position. Our intention was to make no change in the law as to the incidence of death duties.
The explanation the Minister has just given in relation to this amendment—he having one minute ago suggested he could give no explanation—shows the contempt into which a Government, which says it is a strong Government with a strong majority, could put the institutions of this House. It also shows the way in which the Minister considers that the merits or demerits of matters brought before the House by him and his colleagues should or should not be explained.
So far as the amendment itself is concerned, the position appears to me to be that the change proposed here, having heard the Minister as to exact effect of this working, is one that now could be accepted on this side of the House, but we do not propose to allow legislation to pass without seeing that the wording is such that we can accept it.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:—
In subsection (2) (a), lines 1 and 2, "registered land" deleted and "property the ownership of which is registered under the Act of 1891" substituted.
This is a drafting amendment. The expression "registered land" is not sufficient to cover burdens, such as money charges, the ownership of which may be registered in the Land Registry. As is explained in the explanatory memorandum, where a person gets his title registered, the register is conclusive and no question of notice can arise. Such a person acquires the legal ownership, and he is not affected by anything that does not appear in the register.
Does this amendment operate only for the purpose of this Bill or does it also have the effect of bringing the definition "registered land" to include other matters?
I am satisfied that it covers what is included in the section. That is my legal advice.
Will the Minister say what is included in the section?
If the Deputy was interested, he would have read the explanatory memorandum.
I am not going to help the Minister by looking it up. He has his expert advisers who can answer the questions for him. If he does not want to have the question answered in the House, we shall deal with the matter in another way.
I should like to refer the Deputy to the fact that in the discussion here on 5th November on Committee Stage, Deputy Sweetman challenged a statement made by me on that occasion.
That is right.
I stated then that it was new to the statutory law and the following discussion took place on that occasion:
Mr. Traynor: It is new to the statutory law.
Mr. Sweetman: On the Report Stage, I shall have great pleasure in showing the Minister where it is. It is not new. I should not like to quote the statute it is in, but it is not new.
Mr. Traynor: In that event, I must be wrongly advised.
Mr. Sweetman: I think the Minister is, unless the section means something more—unless something new is put into the section.
Deputy Sweetman went on to say:
...when a person sells, as personal representative, a leasehold interest, the purchaser is not concerned with anything further in relation to such a sale. One does that every day. One assigns, as personal representative, and, when you assign as personal representative of a leasehold estate, the purchaser is not concerned with the course of the administration.
Mr. Traynor: I am assured it is new to statutory law. The Deputy should produce the reference to the existing statute.
Mr. Sweetman: The Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874. There is no difficulty at all about it. I think this is a re-enactment and that it is the note at the side that is wrong. I do not think it is new except as regards real estate. The section itself is all right but the note at the side is misleading.
Mr. Traynor: Is the Deputy arguing that it is not new to the statute law?
Mr. Sweetman: Yes.
Mr. Traynor: Will the Deputy look into that and, on the Report Stage, he can tell me whether he was successful or not in finding the exact statutory provision?
Mr. Sweetman: I shall give the Minister the opportunity of checking my information by sending him a letter beforehand.
Mr. Traynor: Very good.
The Deputy ran away from that. He did not send a letter and he did not come into the House to report the matter on the Report Stage. He knew he was wrong.
If the Minister had the manners to ask the Parliamentary Secretary who is sitting behind him, he would find that I was ill and that I was not in the House when the Report Stage was taken.
That is as good an excuse as any.
We now have an example of what ignorance we can get from a Minister.
The ignorance is on the Deputy's side.
The Minister will find, and his Parliamentary Secretary will find, that it will not be so easy to get the co-operation of the House when he is behaving like this.
The co-operation is all on our side. It was on our side yesterday.
It certainly was not and the Minister for Defence knows it. If he does not, he ought to ask his own colleagues.
What took place yesterday has nothing to do with what is before the House. Deputy Sweetman is entitled to speak.
Nobody is entitled to speak when we have strong Government. On the Committee Stage, I suggested to the Minister that this was not new to the statute law. Subsequently, having gone into it at some length, I ascertained that it was the practice of the Court of Chancery which was being enacted here and that the reference to the Vendor and Purchaser Act, 1874, which comes into that case law decided by the Court of Chancery was not in the statute as such. The Minister was perfectly correct when he said that on that occasion and I told other people that I proposed to take advantage of the Report Stage to say so.
The section put into the statute was, in fact, case law up to that time. When one transfers case law into a statute, one must be sure that, if one is introducing consolidated law, and I understood the Minister to say on that occasion that he was merely anxious to draft in statutory form what was in fact the existing case law, one must be sure that the definition one introduces into a section of the statute is introduced in such a way that it affects merely the section concerned and that it cannot be given a throw-back reference that might have been there if a previous statute were being re-enacted.
In this case, the amendment for which the Minister is asking is an amendment that provides certificates of charge and so forth in relation to Section 19. I did not think there was case law on that subject and therefore all I am asking is to be quite clear that the definition of "registered land" in this connection is one that affects this section alone and that the definition will not be inscribed into statute law where it is not ipso facto being included as a definition that would otherwise affect other aspects of registered land. I do not think it does. I think it is a matter on which the House should be assured.
The answer is "yes"—that it affects this section alone. The Deputy said he was ill. The Whip now assures me that that is correct. I accept that and I regret anything I said in that connection. What I want to impress on the House is that it was new to the statute law. I want the Deputy now to admit that he was wrong.
I just said so a minute ago.
That is quite all right, then.
I said I found out afterwards that I was wrong and that I had intended to say so on the Report Stage. This is the first chance I have had of saying it.
I am accepting that Deputy Sweetman was ill and that he was not in a position to attend but why did he not send the letter he suggested?
Because I knew I was wrong. There was no necessity to write the letter unless I thought the Minister was wrong and wanted to give him an opportunity of checking it.
Surely the courteous thing for the Deputy to do would be to write and say that he was wrong?
Surely a sick man does not write a letter?
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:—
In subsection (5), lines 19 and 20, "either solely or jointly with the personal representatives" deleted.
We are satisfied on reconsideration that the last part of subsection (2) of section 87 of the Registration of Title Act, 1891, which allows the personal representative to be registered jointly with the person entitled, should not be re-enacted. Joint registration serves no useful purpose. If there is any reason why the Court should not make an order for the registration of the person entitled, there is nothing to prevent the Court allowing such person to renew his application.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in Amendment No. 4:
Subsection (6) deleted and the following new subsection substituted:—
"( ) (a) Nothing in this Act or in the Administration of Estates Act, 1959, shall operate to require the registering authority to register as the owner of land a person in his capacity as personal representative.
(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) of section 17 of the Registration of Title Act, 1942, the registering authority may enter on the register a note setting out the fact of the death of a registered owner of land and the names of his personal representatives."
The object of this amendment is twofold. Firstly, it proposes to rewrite subsection (6) in the light of the amendment to subsection (5). Secondly, it proposes to provide for the entry in the register of a note of the death of the registered owner. Up to the making of the 1937 Land Registration Rules, the entry of such a note was provided for in the rules, though there was no express statutory authority for so doing. The entry of a note renders unnecessary the registration of the personal representative. The present practice of registering the personal representative will be discontinued.
By the way, subsection (1) of section 17 of the Registration of Title Act, 1942, mentioned in paragraph (b) of the proposed new subsection, prevents notice of a trust in respect of registered land being entered in the register. It is considered desirable to make it clear that the 1942 Act provision does not prevent the entry of a note of the death of the registered owner and the names of his personal representatives. The policy of the law as to the registration of title is to keep trusts off the register, but the entry of a note of death will not conflict with this policy.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:—
Sub-section (7) deleted.
This amendment proposes to delete sub-section (7). There is strictly no need for this sub-section as the Registration of Title Act, 1891, provides in sections 53 and 54 for the application of the provisions of the Act in regard to the registration of the ownership of freehold, to the registration of the ownership of leaseholds and to the registration of the ownership of rights such as money charges, rentcharges, etc., mentioned in section 54 (1) of the 1891 Act. I should like to mention here that all the rules made from 1937 to 1956 are now being consolidated and amended in the light of the proposals in the present Bill. We hope to have the new rules available in print by the 1st June.
Did the Minister say by the 1st June?
Yes.
That is very satisfactory.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments reported and agreed to.
Ordered: That a message be sent to the Seanad accordingly.
On a point of explanation. I am sorry there was a misunderstanding between Deputy Sweetman and the Minister. Deputy Sweetman agreed at short notice last night to take this Bill this morning. The Minister did not fully understand that the amendments should be taken seriatim. It is also a fact that Deputy Sweetman's office was in touch with me at the time of the Report Stage to say that he was ill and could not be here for the amendments in which he was interested.
Perhaps it is one of the examples of what happens the morning after one sits too late the night before.
I should like to refer the Chair to a statement by Deputy Sweetman. Perhaps he said it in the heat of the moment. He said he would take some halting action against the business which would come before the House after this. Is that statement correct? If it is allowed to pass, surely what happened here on this Bill should not be allowed to affect any business that follows? The Deputy—I believe in the heat of the moment and in a childish kind of anger—threatened to do it.
The two of you should go for a cup of coffee and forget all about this.
If the Minister will make statements like that, he should be accurate. I am interested not in what the Minister may think about me but in how this Dáil should function. The Minister may think anything he likes about me. In fact, the worse he thinks of me the greater compliment I shall consider it. Any Parliament can function only if, when there is agreement on both sides of the House to take matters at short notice, the agreement is carried out on our side and on the Minister's side. I tried to ensure yesterday that that would happen when, in relation to this business, as the Parliamentary Secretary has just said, we agreed to take it at short notice. I said we would have to take it in the normal way. I said earlier that, if we were to have examples of this and not have it taken in the normal way, then we could not take it at short notice. That is necessary not for me but so that Parliament can function.
I can almost see a halo around the head of the Deputy.
If the Minister looks in the looking-glass, there is no danger that he will see a halo around his head.