Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Jan 1957

Vol. 47 No. 1

Statute of Limitations Bill, 1954—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The object of the Bill is to reform the law as to the limitation of actions and arbitrations. Not alone does it propose to reform that law but it will also clarify and consolidate it. In order to facilitate a study of the Bill, which is in many ways a technical one, explanatory sidenotes have been added. These notes indicate the existing statutory provisions and rules of law being consolidated, amended, repealed or overruled. On page 4 of the Bill Senators will find a legend showing the short method by which each statute is referred to in the sidenotes. We hope the notes will be of assistance and we propose to use notes of this type in all our law reform Bills. They will not, of course, appear in the Bills as enacted into law.

The Bill before the House deals, in the main, with the general Acts governing the limitation of the principal classes of legal action. The most important of these Acts are the Irish Common Law Procedure Act of 1853 and the Real Property Limitation Acts of 1833 to 1874. The 1853 Act is concerned with ordinary actions of contract and tort and the Real Property Acts deal with actions relating to land and money charged on land. It is important to note that, whereas the 1853 Act bars the remedy but leaves the right intact, the Acts of 1833 to 1874 bar the remedy and the right. The principle enshrined in the Bill is that, where there is a charge on land or personal property, once the remedy is gone the right is extinguished. This is in line with Government policy to simplify the title to property.

The Bill does not deal with special types of statutory action such as actions under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1956, the Industrial and Commercial Property Act, 1927, which deals with copyright actions, the Moneylenders Act, 1933, and the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1934. It is a Bill to deal with the general statutes of limitation and not with particular statutes of limitation.

Part II of the Bill covers the periods of limitation for different classes of actions. In Section II will be found the proposals for contract and tort actions. The period will be six years for all such actions, except that for personal injuries actions and slander actions the period will be three years. We think that three years is long enough for actions arising out of, say, motor car accidents. In the case of slander, there seems no real reason why the action should not be brought within three years.

Actions to recover land and actions in respect of mortgages and charges on land or chattels are dealt with in Sections 13 to 42. The period will, as at present, be 12 years to recover the land (including a rentcharge) or a principal sum charged on land. The period for arrears of a rentcharge or interest on a principal sum will continue to be six years.

The Bill distinguishes between express and constructive trustees. By reason of Section 44 an express trustee will not be able to plead the statute where he has been guilty of fraud or where he retains the trust property. A personal representative will, however, be able to plead the statute except where he is guilty of fraud. A personal representative, in the case of registered land, has been held to be an express trustee by reason of a decision of the High Court. The Bill proposes to overrule the decision. Our proposals will help people to establish title to land, and will also, we hope, encourage the taking out of probate and administration.

Part III of the Bill deals with disability, acknowledgment, part-payment, fraud and mistake. In general, the law on these aspects of limitation is being simplified and a number of anomalies are being removed. The disability of absence beyond the seas is being abolished. Acknowledgment or part-payment need not imply a fresh promise to pay in any type of case. The differences between the rules of common law and the rules of equity in regard to fraud and mistake are resolved.

Part IV of the Bill applies the provisions of the Bill to arbitrations and is simply a re-enactment of the relevant provisions in the Arbitration Act, 1954.

The Bill will apply to the State and State authorities, but it will not apply to the recovery of taxes and duties under the care and management of the Revenue Commissioners. At present the State is not bound by the ordinary statutes of limitation because of the old doctrine that time does not run against the King. We think it is high time that we abolished this doctrine. This is in accordance with our policy to remove from our law the special privileges of the State in legal actions.

In ordinary contract and tort actions against the State, the limitation period will be the same as in actions between private citizens. In actions to recover land the proposal in the Bill is that, whereas the period for an ordinary person will be 12 years, the period for a State authority will be 30 years. The period for the recovery of foreshore will be 60 years. At present where Crown land is concerned the period is 60 years. No period of limitation applies to the Land Commission under existing law.

We think that this Bill represents a badly needed piece of legal reform. The existing law is in many respects uncertain and difficult, and we considered that a very useful purpose would be served if it were amended, clarified and brought up-to-date. On Committee Stage, I hope to be able to assist the House in dealing in detail with the various sections of the Bill. Also, the officers of my Department will always be readily available to discuss with any Senator any points arising out of proposals in the Bill.

It is generally admitted that there must be a law of limitation. There ought to be a definite restriction on ordinary litigation after a certain time. Where property is concerned, it is most desirable that title to it may be established after clear possession for a reasonable period.

We trust we have succeeded in what we set out to do and that the Bill, when law, will be a great benefit not alone to lawyers but also to laymen.

Is é an cuspóir atá laistiar den Bhille seo na hAchtanna a bhaineann leis an achar ama a ceapadh fadó ba cheart a thabhairt do dhaoine chun cúiseanna áirithe dlí do chur ar bun d'ath-mheas agus d'athchóiriú d'fhonn an dlí a chur in oiriúint do shaol an lae inniu. Dar ndóigh, tá a leithéid ag teastáil mar ní hionann an saol atá inniu ann agus an saol a bhí ann breis is céad bliain ó shoin nuair a cuireadh an chéad Acht a bhaineann leis an rud so ar bun. An uair sin ní raibh an fuadar céanna fé na daoine. Ní raibh cúrsaí gnótha agus tráchtála ag brú anuas ar dhaoine fé mar atáid anois agus bhí níos mó ama ann chun machnaimh agus chun féachaint ina dtimpeall. Dá bhrí sin, ní haon ionadh go bhfuil iarracht á dhéanamh anois againn chun atheagar a chur ar dhlithe na tíre seo maidir leis an dtréimhse is ceart a thabhairt chun cúiseanna áirithe dlí a chur ar bun. Gnó ana dheacair is ea é seo gan aon amhras agus caithfimíd féachaint cuige, ag leasú agus ag athchóiriú na ndlithe seo, nó bainfimíd ó dhaoine ceartanna agus pribhléidí is ceart a bheith acu. B'fhéidir nach aon diobháil féachaint inár dtimpeall chun a fháil amach cad iad na hathruithe atá déanta as Reachtanna na dtréimhsí

dtíortha eile gurb' ionann cursaí saoil agus beatha iontu agus againn féin, nó ar a laghad tíortha go bhfuil cosúlacht idir a gcúrsaí saoil agus ár gcúrsaí féin anso.

Is maith an rud é gur cinneadh ar nótaí mínithe do chur síos ar imeall an Bhille seo. Is cabhair iad, ach chun na fírinne d'innsint b'fhearr liom féin an meamram mínithe a cuirtí amach amannta eile in aonacht le téics an Bhille. Ba chríochnúla agus b'éifeachtaí mar sin é. Ach níl sa mhéid sin ach mo thuairim féin. B'fhéidir go mbeadh a mhalairt de thuairim ag daoine eile.

Tríd is tríd is dóigh liom gur Bille maith é seo agus is dóigh liom go bhfuil creidiúint ag dul dóibh seo d'ullamhuigh é agus a thóg an oiread san dá dhua orthu féin. Brainse an-chasta den dlí atá á leasú agus atá á athchur eagar againn agus is Bille é seo nach gá mórán cainte a dhéanamh ar an tarna céim de.

Having said so much in the mother tongue, I suppose I will have to say a few words in English but I will not detain the House very long with the few observations that I have to make because I realise this is a measure that would not usefully lend itself to a lengthy discussion on Second Reading. It is highly involved and highly technical. It is a measure in which there are many references to existing Acts.

Accordingly, in order to examine the Bill properly and see its provisions in their proper perspective it would be necessary for us to have recourse to all Acts of the past governing limitations —to legal actions and to statutes of limitation. This is entirely, I would say, a non-Party Bill and therefore, I think, non-controversial. That being so, it can be dealt with entirely on its merits. It is essentially a consolidation Bill, a Bill which will, I think, go a long way towards codifying the existing Statutes of Limitation.

If and when that end is achieved, that consolidation is arrived at, it will bring relief to many, to legal practitioners especially and, of course, to future litigants, because I think it is true to say there are few branches of the law of this country or of any country that are more difficult to follow, more difficult to understand than is the law dealing with this question of the limitation of actions.

The most important of the Statutes of Limitation is the Common Law Procedure (Amendment) Act of 1853. I think the Minister referred to that here; if he did not refer to it here he certainly did in the other House. That Common Law Statute of Limitations dealt with such actions as actions in tort, in contract and other similar actions. After that, we have the Real Property Limitation Acts from 1833 to 1874 which deal with actions in respect of land, ownership of and interest in land. It also deals with profits and rents derived from land. I submit that indeed in itself is a very complicated branch of law.

This ownership and claims to ownership of land and the various interests in land have, in the past, given rise to a good deal of litigation. That is why I say that the Real Property Limitation Acts comprise a most complicated branch of the law as we know it. I think the underlying idea of this measure is to bring the various Statutes of Limitation into a more regular system—in other words to consolidate these Acts.

However, this Bill does more than that since it proposes to amend these Acts. As well as amending them I think I am prepared to admit it proposes to do so in a desirable way. Of course I would say it is right and proper that these Statutes of Limitation should more or less be brought up to date so to speak, that they should be brought into conformity with the requirements of modern society. The social order and the conditions of living have changed a great deal over the years, especially since the Common Law Procedure Act was brought in in 1853. Indeed, it has changed since the Real Property Limitation Acts were brought in, those Acts that date from 1833 to 1874.

Everybody knows the tempo of life has increased very much since those days. The conduct of business affairs has undergone a profound change and it is, as I said, because of these things that a change in the law is necessary and desirable. This Bill deals with many things: it deals with actions of contract and other actions of that kind, actions to recover possession of land and so on, actions to assert the ownership of land, actions to claim the right to certain rents from land, actions to recover settled chattels, actions to recover arrears of rent-charges, conventional rents, dower and annuities charged on personal property, actions in respect of mortgages and charges, actions in respect of trust property, that trust property being describable as equitable estate.

Then there are actions in respect of deceased persons' estates and so on and, as I mentioned already in my Irish remarks, if we were to deal with all these things minutely, in detail and in a satisfactory way, the Committee Stage of this Bill would last for about six months. Because of the complex nature of this measure and its many and varied provisions and the many aspects of the law that it touches upon, I think it would be in keeping with common sense and good procedure to suggest that this Bill is essentially one for a Special Committee of the House so that those members dealing with it would be in a position to ask questions across the table and to put the various points of view from one to another and have the Bill discussed in a full and satisfactory manner. I would put that suggestion to the House this evening before we settle the date on which the Committee Stage will be taken.

There are certain changes being made in the law as to the time limit that should be put on actions. This time limit operates in various ways and will still operate in various ways when this Bill becomes law. We have the action for a simple contract debt, the time limit for which will still be six years. I take it, therefore, that that is to be left unchanged, that it is only after a period of six years that the statute of limitations will run against the claimant. There appears to be no proposal to change the law as regards debt in simple contract or any such obligation.

There is also the special contract debt, what is called in legal parlance the speciality contract, that is, contract under seal. Hitherto a contract under seal occupied a special place by itself and the statute of limitations did not run against that contract for 20 years, that is, a contract brought about by specific deed. The reason for that was that those parties who would go to the trouble of drafting such a deed, having it stamped and registered, were, by that action, attaching more sanctity to it than would be attached to an ordinary simple contract. What I mean by the ordinary simple contract is the contract which takes place every other day between people going into shops to purchase goods, and so on. Those are simple contracts, but these speciality contracts are those that are brought about by deed, the deed to be registered and stamped and duly executed. I see that in this Bill that period of 20 years is being reduced to 12 years. I think that is right because in the world of to-day with the quick passage of time—I mean that as regards people's imagination and feelings time passes more quickly now than it ever did before—it is only right that the period of limitation would be changed as it is being changed in this Bill.

There is then the limitation on actions in respect of the ownership of land. I understand that that is being left more or less as it is at 12 years. The Minister mentioned actions for slander. There are different kinds of slander, slander per se and the other kind of slander where special damages have to be proved. Henceforth there is to be no distinction as regards such actions. It will be a simple action for slander. I understand from the Minister that the period during which an action of that kind can be brought is three years. That is right also because after three years it would be fairly difficult to produce the necessary evidence to sustain the action in a court of law.

There is also a change being made to which the Minister referred and which will go some way towards making the State amenable to the law of limitation as well as ordinary individuals. This position which the State has occupied up to now derives from an ancient axiom of the law—"The King can do no wrong". Now the State takes the place of the king and hitherto the position was that the State could do no wrong. However, even after the passage of this Bill there will still be a certain amount of leeway to make up in that direction to bring the State into line with the position of the ordinary individuals of society.

I notice that as regards such land there has been an amendment since the Bill was considered in the Dáil. The period of limitation for a State authority was, as the Bill stood then, 40 years. Now it has been reduced to 30 years. That is about right, because, as far as I know, that is the position in Britain regarding the recovery of land by a State authority. There it is subject to a limitation of only 30 years. Of course, the conditions in Britain are not exactly the same as they are here. The vendors and purchasers' law relating to land is not the same here as in Britain, but I do not intend to go into that now.

I do not think there is any more I could usefully say on this Stage. The Bill touches upon many items of legal procedure in this country and I would ask the Minister and the House to consider my suggestion that the Committee Stage be referred to a Special Committee of the House.

I do not propose to say very much at the present stage. It would be quite impossible on the Second Stage to discuss this Bill. In Alice in Wonderland they were able to talk about cabbages and kings but the diversity of topics dealt with in this Bill of some 120 sections is far greater than that so that on this stage there is very little anyone could usefully say.

There are just two major points that occur to me. One is that—I do not know whether it is relevant to the Bill or not—I am very sorry that the position still remains that there is no Statute of Limitations as regards any sum which might be due in respect of tax. I do think that this country should follow the example of the United Kingdom in regard to that and it is rather wrong, I think, that in this country claims of tax can be made back to the year 1922. That is a matter which must be attended to some time. The Minister has pointed out that under this Bill the State does give up certain privileges which it had. I do think there should be limitations there as there are in England. I think that the people who prepared this Bill are certainly to be congratulated because it is a masterpiece of care and accuracy. It obviously represents the labour of a very long period and undoubtedly it will be a very convenient thing to the lawyer to have a codification of this kind of the law.

I am sorry in a way that it does not seem to deal very fully with the question of easements and it relates rather to the rights of property rather than of easements. One might have thought that there might have been very many obscurities which could have been dealt with in an omnibus Bill of this kind. As I have said, it would be a waste of time and energy to try to discuss the force of the laws changed in the Bill at this stage. They are matters for Committee Stage. Senator Kissane referred to the fact that in regard to slander the period had been extended from two to three years. I feel that in the case of slander the injured person who does not take action within two years would have very little to complain of and I do not see why it should be extended to three years. There are a couple of other laws which are introduced in the Bill which I think are really matters which might require a good deal of consideration. I am only a solicitor and I am not an expert on law. It seems to me that Section 72—the postponement of limitation period in the case of mistake—might be a fertile cause of doubt and dispute. One of the really good things about a Bill like this, no matter how well drafted, is that it does give hope of almost limitless litigation over a period. From that point it seems that it will be welcome.

I think that what Senator Kissane said to the effect that some form of discussion, either by a committee of the House, or a discussion between those members who are most interested in the Bill, before the Committee Stage might be very helpful because undoubtedly this is the kind of Bill which can be discussed much more easily across the table and possibly some discussion of that kind could be arranged. I think we have in this House one of the great experts on the law of limitations, Professor George O'Brien, who has made a close study of it. In general, I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister and the draftsmen on what has obviously been a work of very great care and skill and I am certain it will eventually be of very great value in a very difficult branch of the law.

A codification Bill of this nature is indeed one that will be appreciated by legal practitioners. As the Minister has explained the limitation of actions is contained in various Statutes and Rules of Law. This Consolidation Bill which will also amend the law of limitations will be a valuable addition to the Acts of the Oireachtas. Like Senator Cox. I wish to congratulate the Minister, his advisers and draftsmen in bringing forward this Bill and having its provisions set out in a clear and precise form. The explanatory notes of the Bill are most helpful for reference purposes. It is obvious that a considerable amount of thought, research and consultation has gone into the preparation of this — as Senator Kissane has remarked—highly technical Bill. The codification reforms which have been achieved under this Bill could also be applied with very useful effect to the law on fisheries, the licensing laws and the laws on local government.

During the Committee Stage of the Bill in the other House a considerable number of amendments were made in the Bill seeking further additional improvements and tidying up the law of limitations. One amendment, which has been agreed to and which was referred to by various speakers on the Second Stage in the other House, will be of much benefit, particularly to the small farmers with whom I have much contacts in the course of my practice. That is the law contained in Section 2, sub-section (2) (a) (ii). At present in the case of a registered owner who died intestate, leaving a large family, and where one of the family, or the widow, would have a moral right to the holding, because of the fact that that person had remained on to look after, say, aged parents, while the other members had gone off to America or England and had been paid their dowries and their fares, the person who stayed at home sacrificed himself and possibly found it necessary to extract a grant of administration for the purpose of withdrawing a sum in deposit receipts or an amount payable under an insurance premium. Because of the fact that that person had taken out administration he is also deprived of the right to ownership unless the next of kin release their interests, whereas, if administration had not been taken out, he could have gone to the Circuit Court and obtained an order under Section 52 and become registered as full owner. I am glad the amendment which was made on the Committee Stage in the other House has now rectified that position. It frequently led to a good deal of uncertainly, as well as dissatisfaction and injustice to the personal representative.

The six months' period which had previously been the law for commencing actions against the local authority, prior to the passing of the Public Authorities (Judicial Proceedings) Act two years ago, was in my opinion as a member of a local authority and as a legal practitioner, too short a period, but I feel that six years was too long a period and I am glad that the period is to be reduced to three years. I even feel that three years may possibly be too long and that people may sometimes take advantage of it by delaying to take proceedings until such time as the official of the local authority who is familiar with the position has been transferred or resigned and then there is no one who is familiar with the particular circumstances. At any rate, it certainly is an improvement on the period which formerly was the law.

It is a good thing that the Minister has seen fit to agree that the provisions of the Bill will apply to actions by or against a State authority under Section 3. This is in accordance with the Constitution, although I still feel that there is a great injustice in the State's non-liability for tort, apart from the liability under the Road Traffic Act, 1933. The law in this respect should, I suggest, be amended without any further delay.

To permit the State 40 years to recover land is, in my opinion, to long a period as against the individual's right of only 12 years. I can see no reason why that period should not be reduced to, say, 20 years as against the individual's right of 12 years. I agree, however, that the recovery of foreshore should be a longer period because of the fact that the public as a whole have a greater interest in such a right.

There does not appear to be any provision in the Bill as to the period which may elapse from the time proceedings are instituted until they are determined. I suggest, therefore, that something should be done concerning pending proceedings. As far as I am aware, a creditor may sue for a debt on a civil bill and have it adjourned generally. There does not appear to be any provision against the civil bill being re-entered, say, 20 years later and a decree being obtained.

Take the case of an equity civil bill brought by a creditor claiming the administration of an estate. The order is made and the procedure as far as the taking of accounts and inquiries by the county registrar is carried through and the registrar's certificate is made up. The creditor's debt may be paid, but if the creditor sues for all the other creditors as well as for himself, I can see nothing to prevent another creditor from having the proceedings re-entered and claiming the benefit of the administration suit which had been brought, as I have said, a considerable number of years previously.

The same thing could happen where a judgment mortgagee brings a suit to realise his security. A defendant may pay off his particular mortgage and the costs to date and the interest of the plaintiff then vanishes, but the order still remains. The suit is not dismissed and I think it is open to a puisne mortgagee to have the case re-entered and obtain the benefit of the suit years afterwards. I suggest it should be provided that if no steps are taken in such cases after a certain number of years, the proceedings should be automatically dismissed out of court.

I also feel that some provision should be made in the case of debtors who leave the country and that the statute should run against such debtors while they remain outside the State. It may happen that a debtor with a considerable amount of liabilities may leave the State and remain out for six years and then return. His address, while he is absent, is unknown and, when he returns, he is clear of all debts and the creditors are without any remedy. I think there should be some way of keeping such debts alive. Here in Ireland where, unfortunately, so many of our people have to emigrate, it is a problem that may arise more frequently than in other countries where this position does not apply. At any rate, like Senator Kissane and Senator Cox, I feel that if any useful amendments can be made to this Bill, they will be more practicably dealt with, as they have suggested, by a Special Committee.

Mr. Douglas

I did not intend to speak now, but I have a number of questions which I had hoped to ask the Minister on the Committee Stage. I would like to support Senator Cox on one point he raised, that is, the fact that there is no protection at all for the ordinary citizen in regard to limitation on the period in which income-tax out of profits can be assessed and reassessed for income-tax purposes. Under the existing law, which is not affected by this Bill at all, the Revenue Commissioners or the inspector of taxes can go back as far as 1922 and reopen an assessment which might have been agreed at that time. Citizens, companies or bodies can find themselves in the position that they have made a thoroughly accurate return of their income in 1922 or 1935, or any year in the past 35 years, and they may have agreed it with the inspector of taxes. In due course, that inspector may have retired and a new inspector may have been appointed, who is at perfect liberty to reopen the assessment for any of those years and decide that it had been made wrongly. I know one actual case at the present time.

In Britain, I understand that, provided there has been no case of fraud, the Revenue Commissioners may not reassess after a period of, I think, six years. I would ask the Minister to consider consulting, before the Committee Stage, with the Minister for Finance to see if any amendment could be made to give protection to the ordinary citizen against reopening an assessment, going back over a period of more than five or six years.

I also join with Senator Cox and Senator Walsh in suggesting that this is a Bill which could be considered by a Special Committee and I should like to support their suggestion that it be referred to a Special Committee rather than to the House again.

I had not intended to speak on this Bill, but something which Senator Walsh said provokes me to do so. If it is the law at present that a debtor can go out of the country and after a lapse of years return debt free, it seems to be a very serious defect in our law. If this Bill does not remedy that defect, I most earnestly suggest to the Minister that it should, that this is the time to remedy the defect. I should like the Minister to give some assurance to the Seanad on that point. If he could tell us that that in fact will not be so, that if a person goes abroad and comes back after a lapse of years, he will still be liable for his debts, then we will all be satisfied; but if he cannot tell us that, I would urge him to introduce a section into this Bill to remedy the defect.

I should like to support Senator Douglas in what he said with regard to the power of the Revenue Commissioners to go back for a long number of years. One of the great difficulties in that is that they often go back when the person who would have been concerned has died. That often makes it more difficult for the trustees. There is a big anomaly there.

There was a case in which I was an executor myself. The Revenue Commissioners caused an investigation to be made and the investigation cost several hundred pounds. It was proved there was no money due, but the estate had to bear the cost of the investigation. Apart from the undesirability of always causing apprehension and disturbance to the executors, and maybe the widow, as it often turns out to be, I think it is a bad principle. The principle which the Minister stated, when he was speaking here on the Second Reading of this Bill, that the State should not have rights greater than are enjoyed by the ordinary citizens, is a principle which should apply also to ensure that the Revenue Commissioners would not enjoy any greater rights either. It is a peculiar anomaly that when the British moved out of Dublin Castle, the Revenue Commissioners moved in. Sometimes I feel that some of the ghosts lurking in that building are still showing their defiance in the presence of the Revenue Commissioners.

I join with Senator Cox, Senator Douglas and Senator Burke in their pleas to the Minister to take some action about the powers of the Revenue Commissioners. The Minister has made a certain amount of play in introducing this Bill here to-night that the special position enjoyed by the State went back to the old days of kingships when "the King could do no wrong." If ever we allow the Revenue Commissioners to enjoy the powers they enjoyed heretofore, of going back over 34 years for taxation purposes in cases already settled—and paid, mind you; it is not a question where they have been owed money but in cases settled and paid—surely we are giving to the Revenue Commissioners a divine right, so to speak, that was never enjoyed by kings. I would seriously suggest to the Minister that between now and the Committee Stage he should give very careful consideration to the introduction of a suitable clause in this Bill.

I wish to express my appreciation to the Senators for their very kind remarks in connection with the officials for the labour they have undertaken in introducing this Bill. Our one desire was to get a Bill on which we would have the co-operation of the House and which would be a good Bill.

I have been asked a question, on which I am sure there would be a unanimous decision from both Houses, viz., could we interfere with the Revenue Commissioners regarding income-tax. While I have every sympathy with the views expressed, I can assure Senators that the position is that this is not the relevant Bill for the purpose. It is in a Finance Bill or an Income Tax Bill that one would have to deal with that matter.

We agree to send this Bill forward to a Special Committee and the Senators appointed to that committee can discuss all the points raised around the table. We are prepared to cooperate with the Senators as far as we possibly can in producing a Bill which will meet with general approval and remove the anomalies existing here for up to a century in many cases. I would ask the Seanad to pass only the Second Reading to-night and the House may then refer the Bill to a Special Committee to consider what amendments or improvements can be made in it.

I would ask another favour, that is, that the committee should not meet sooner than a fortnight or three weeks from now. We are engaged on another committee in the Dáil and it would take some time for the officials to prepare to meet the Senators appointed on the Special Committee of this House. If the Seanad desires to appoint a committee to inquire into this and to discuss any amendments which may be desirable, I am, as I said, prepared to accept the suggestion.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share