Vol. 31 No. 22
The following Message has been received from the Dáil:—
Dáil Eireann has agreed to amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, made by Seanad Eireann to the Land Bill, 1945; it has disagreed to amendment No. 1; to which the agreement of Seanad Eireann is desired.
I move:—
That the Seanad do not insist on amendment No. 1 made by it to the Land Bill, 1945, with which the Dáil has disagreed.
I am completely unfamiliar with the method by which the Seanad does its business, and, therefore, I was at a loss in the Dáil during the past week in regard to the manner in which I should deal with the Land Bill as returned to the Dáil from the Seanad. I understood from Senator Sweetman that his three amendments were interdependent and that when one of them was defeated—particularly when amendment No. 1 had not been agreed to—it seemed to me that the passing of amendment No. 2, also moved by the Senator, was a rather useless proposition. Therefore, I recommended to the Dáil that the amendment which was passed in the Seanad should not be accepted by the Dáil. I think that I have indicated to the Seanad my sympathy with the viewpoint expressed by the Senators who supported that particular amendment. My reason for not recognising that point of view is that my proposal in regard to this legislation has a limited aspect. It is not related to general legislation. There is also the point that we have to meet a particular difficulty in a particular manner. Here we have one particular difficulty which we cannot meet otherwise than by the method which I have proposed.
After a long discussion in the Dáil, the members of that House agreed, without any division, to accept all the proposals in the new Land Bill. It was only in the Seanad that we found objection to particular proposals. I regret that I have to refuse to accept the point of view expressed particularly by Senator Sweetman in regard to the question of "residence". I feel that if the Land Commission have the power and the authority given to them by the Oireachtas to give land to allottees that they, too, should have the power to insist that these allottees shall fulfill their commitments to the country. That really is the reason why I feel that the amendment moved by Senator Sweetman and passed by the Seanad to substitute prima facie for “conclusive” should not be insisted upon by the Seanad.
The Minister, if I may say so, has been extraordinarily innocent in the remarks that he has just made. The plain facts of this matter are very, very simple. The question, as the Minister has stated, was discussed at very great length in the Dáil. In the Dáil Debates—Volume 100, No. 4—that discussion is set out very fully. It appears quite clear from the report—column 510 and onwards— that the Minister based his whole case on the fact that it was not possible to make a verbal definition of the word "residence". When the Bill came to this House the Minister continued to base his case on the fact that a definition of the word "residence" was impossible. His whole viewpoint at that time was quite clear. What he was expressing to the House was that it was impossible to define "residence", but that if anybody gave him a good definition of it he would be only too glad to accept it with open arms, so as to get over the impossible position in which the Land Commission is going to be judge, jury and prosecutor all combined. Then, he came along to this House. With the assistance of some other Senators, I put up the definition which is set out in column 1756. The Minister was honest enough to admit that the form of words which I put up was perfect. That was the Minister's description of them in this House. Having been given the answer to his question and having had the prop upon which he was relying knocked away, he had to come out in the true colours of the Land Commission and show that what the Land Commission wanted was not really a formula for "residence" but power to act as judge and jury themselves. That has emerged clearly from the discussion of this Bill in the two Houses. They were not concerned with a formal or technical objection; what they were concerned about was that their opinion should count and nothing else. The amendment passed by this House, the rejection of which has now been moved by Senator Quirke, marked the end of the series of discussions in which we saw what was in the Minister's mind.
The Minister was very naive in the way in which he referred to the matter in the other House. I must, however, be perfectly fair to him and say that he made it quite clear in the other House that what happened here was not the fault of those who sponsored the amendment. In justice to the Minister, I must pay tribute to his fairness in that respect. It is quite clear, as the Minister says, that the amendment inserted by the Seanad cannot now be insisted upon. If it were, the Bill would be complete and absolute nonsense. Senators will have had an opportunity, since then, of reading the report. It was made clear in the beginning of the discussion that the main principle was being discussed with the amendment. If certain people did not want to accept amendment No. 1 as being consequential to No. 2, it would have been better to make that objection in the beginning. The chaotic position into which the Bill was allowed to lapse would not then have occurred. The responsibility must rest not on the Senator whose name appears in the report but on the whole of my friends on the other side who said "Níl" when the consequential amendment was being put. On them must rest the responsibility for refusing to accept the earlier decision of this House. In that situation, the amendment must now be left. The people concerned must be left to the mercy of the Land Commission instead of having the right, which, I thought, was their due, of explaining their case in the proper place.
As one who supported the amendment moved by Senator Sweetman and carried by this House, I cannot understand why he faded out when No. 1 amendment was called by the Chair. I do not think that it is fair for Senator Sweetman to say that there was a chorus of "Níls" from this side of the House when No. 1 amendment was called. In fact, Senator Sweetman failed to insist upon No. 1 amendment. If he had called for a division, he would have got it. Be that as it may, it is clear that the amendment which was inserted in this Bill by the Seanad cannot now stand and that the Seanad must agree to delete it from the Bill. I voted for the amendment not because I felt that it would have any effect, in practice, when the Bill would become law but because I felt, as I always feel, that nothing conclusive should go into a court. The practice of Government Departments fortifying themselves by certificates which are conclusive leaves nothing to the court to decide and necessarily makes the court a rubber stamp for a Government Department. In this case, Senator Sweetman was too generous. He was quite prepared to allow the certificate under the seal of the Land Commission to be conclusive evidence of the fact that a direction was given and that the direction had not been revoked. But he was not prepared to agree that the certificate of the Land Commission, that the purchaser had failed to comply with the direction, should be conclusive evidence. If Senator Johnston's amendment had been accepted, and the words “prima facie” substituted for the word “conclusive,” there would have been no difficulty. I have learned the lesson that the simpler an amendment is, the more likely it is to be carried by the House.
I pointed out on the last occasion that it is immaterial now whether the words “prima facie” appear in the Bill or the word “conclusive,” because Section 2 (b) (i) provides that the direction to be given to the purchaser is to reside continuously “to the satisfaction of the Land Commission” in the dwellinghouse. For that reason, I voted against Senator Sweetman's amendment defining “residence.” It would have been otiose and unnecessary.
The object of defining the word "residence" would be to enable the court to determine whether or not the person had resided in the dwellinghouse but inasmuch as the Bill provides that the purchaser must reside in the dwellinghouse continuously "to the satisfaction of the Land Commission", the court would never get an opportunity of construing the definition of "residence" if it had been inserted in the Bill. Under the Bill as it stands and as it will now pass into law, the Land Commission can make their own definition of residence. The Bill provides that the purchaser is to reside continuously in the dwellinghouse "to the satisfaction of the Land Commission" and whether a person sleeps and eats in the house or whether he spends his week-ends there or not, the Land Commission are the sole judge of "residence" and "continuous residence". For these reasons, the proper thing to have done would have been to delete the words "to the satisfaction of the Land Commission" from the Bill. As that was not done at the time, it is now too late to lock the stable door. Therefore, I agree that the amendment, for which I voted and which was passed by the Seanad, should not be insisted upon. I feel that I am losing nothing, especially as I made my protest in voting for the amendment against the practice which I hope will not be repeated in future legislation of Government Departments endeavouring to obtain the consent of the legislature to what I may call letters de cachet or governmental legislation providing for executing governmental judgments.
This is a new procedure for me too. Are discussions on this matter in Committee or in the House?
In the House.
