Amendment No. 46 is consequential on amendment No. 45 and both may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 21.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 15, subsection (1)(a), to delete "stockbroker" and substitute "member firm (within the meaning of the Stock Exchange Act, 1995)".
This is purely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 15, lines 38 and 39, to delete subsection (3).
Amendment agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 22 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 17, paragraph 3(1), line 24, before "persons" to insert "all of the".
I see no reason all of the persons listed in the classes set out in paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (d) should not be notified if some are to be notified.
The notice provisions in the Schedule are designed to ensure that before an application for registration is made, the attorney notifies the donor and certain other persons so that, where appropriate, these persons can object to the registration. If any of the persons notified by the donor when the enduring power was executed are still available then it will suffice for the attorney to notify them. If not, the Schedule lists a number of categories of relatives in descending order and provides that not more than three person from these categories are to be notified.
However, if there is more than one person in the category, then all of the persons in that category must be notified. An example would be where the donor had four or five children, all of them would have to be notified. However, I could not agree with the Deputy that all of the persons in the various categories should have to be notified. In some cases that would make the system unwieldy, especially when we are extending the list of categories to include grandchildren, nephews and nieces.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 48 and 52 are consequential on amendment No. 49, and amendments Nos. 50 and 51 are related, so amendments Nos. 48 to 52, inclusive, may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 17, paragraph 3(1)(d), line 30, to delete "blood." and substitute "blood;".
The First Schedule provides that, before making an application for registration, the attorney must give notice of intention to do so to the donor and certain other persons. These other persons will normally be those to whom the notice has been given of the execution of the enduring power, but if they have died or become incapable or cannot reasonably be contacted, then notice is to be given to no more than three persons within certain categories of relatives beginning with the donor's spouse and children, if any, and extending to the donor's brothers and sisters. However, if there is more than one person in any of the categories and at least one of them would be entitled to be notified, the limit of three will not apply and all of those in that category will have to be notified.
It was represented by the Law Society that these categories were not wide enough. It instanced the case of an unmarried donor without parents, children, brothers or sisters but with a nephew or a cohabitant. No difficulty should arise if the unmarried donor notifies the nephew or cohabitant of the execution of the enduring power. That will ensure a further notification when the attorney is applying for registration. However, I agree it would be desirable to extend to list of those relatives to be notified to cover the widow or widower of a child of the donor, the donor's grandchildren and children of the donor's brothers and sisters. My amendments provide accordingly.
Amendment No. 50, in the name of Deputy Woods, proposes to extend the categories to nephews and nieces of the donor where the donor is unmarried without living brothers or sisters. This extension is covered in the official amendments because living brothers are mentioned earlier in clause (d). If there are no living brothers or sisters, nephews and nieces will be entitled to be notified because in the case of any unmarried donor the relevant categories from which the requisite three persons are to be selected will be, in descending order, the donor's parents, brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces.
The additional clause which the Deputy wishes to insert will provide a further category of persons to be notified, that is such other persons as are nominated by the donor in the enduring power itself. However, a similar result is achieved by paragraph 2(d) of the Schedule, which provides that the persons whom the donor has notified of the execution of the power must be given advance notice of the application for registration. The texts with the amendments I propose meets the concerns of Deputy Woods and I trust he will agree.
I thank the Minister for following up on the discussions on Second Stage and on the amendment which we put down. He has gone a long way to meeting our requirements.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 17, paragraph 3(1), between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
"(e) the widow or widower of a child of a donor;
(f) the donor's grandchildren;
(g) the children of the donor's brothers and sisters of the whole blood;
(h) the children of the donor's brothers and sisters of the half blood.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 17, paragraph 3(4)(a), line 44, to delete "(d)" and substitute "(h)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 18, paragraph 5(b), line 21, to delete "Registrar of Wards of Court" and substitute "court".
Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second and Third Schedules agreed to.
FOURTH SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 20, line 16, to delete the following row:
"45 & 46 Vict., c.39 I Conveyancing Act, 1882 I Sections 8 and 9.".
I propose this amendment in the light of strong representations by the Law Society which pointed out that sections 8 and 9 of the Conveyancing Act, 1882, have proved useful in the conveyancing field by offering a measure of protection to purchasers who, in the relevant context, do not have to carry a good faith qualification. It goes so far as to suggest that these sections should be clarified and widened. The Minister might consider their suggestions.
The proposal by Deputy Woods to delete sections 8 and 9 of the Conveyancing Act, 1882, from the Schedule of Repeals is in line with the views of the Law Society in its submission last week to the committee. The society asked that these sections should be clarified and widened rather than repealed. Fears were expressed that purchasers might be discouraged from relying on powers of attorney, with a possible impact for both national and international business transactions.
I cannot see any justification for retaining these sections of the 1882 Act. They have been criticised on pages 607 and 608 of Wylie's "Irish Land Law". Wylie states that several problems arise from what he calls the obscure provisions contained in these sections and he discusses them in detail. He points out that in Northern Ireland, the law on this subject was overhauled in 1971. The 1971 Act repealed both sections and substituted provisions corresponding to those in the Bill. Those provisions were regarded as an improvement on those in the 1882 Act and they have not, so far as I am aware, given rise to any conveyancing difficulties. For these reasons I am unable to accept the amendment.
I will consider the Minister's remarks for Report Stage and withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fourth Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Report of Select Committee.
I propose the following draft report:
The Select Committee has considered the Bill, has made amendments thereto, and the Bill, as amended, is reported to the Dáil.
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
We told the Minister we would do everything we could to get the Bill through as soon as possible. We have given a good airing to the points made by people with an outside interest and to the relevant points we could see. It is important that the legislation be enacted as soon as possible. This is probably the main reason I did not accept the Ceann Comhairle's invitation to leave the House today and allowed him to quietly withdraw it afterwards, which is what happened, because I was anxious to see this legislation progress.
We will examine what has been said by the Minister. There may be some amendments we will wish to press on Report Stage. I thank the Minister for the amendments he has accepted and for those which he has modified. He has been especially helpful in this regard.
I am pleased that Deputy Woods did not accept the invitation of the Ceann Comhairle today and I thank him for his help and co-operation in fine tuning the terms of this very important Bill, which many people are waiting to have enacted. I am also grateful, Chairman, for your co-operation.
I am pleased we have concluded our deliberations so efficiently. It did not seem likely this morning that we would deal with all of the amendments by this time. I thank you, Minister, for attending the committee, for advancing your amendments to us and for taking on board many of the points made to, and within, the committee. I also thank Dr. Woods for his very valuable contribution to an important but technical Bill. It would not be fair to give credit to someone for not having been suspended from the House. Nevertheless, it would not have been possible for our proceedings to have taken place today if Deputy Woods had not exercised restraint earlier this morning.
Deputy O'Dea mentioned the importance of the regulations and of ensuring they are put in place as speedily as possible. That is a matter I am sure Deputies will return to on Report Stage. I have a number of notices for the committee but because Deputy Woods is the only member present they might be best relayed through the convenors.
Officials from the Department of Justice wish to attend our licensing laws review on a date the convenors will agree. Finally, I have correspondence arising from a matter that was raised by Deputy O'Donoghue and others earlier this session regarding the misuse of drugs legislation. Rather than read the correspondence, I propose to send a copy of it to every member of the committee, in particular to Deputy O'Donoghue. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy O'Donoghue sent his apologies for his inability to attend.
The Select Committee adjourned at 1.35 p.m.