Special Committee Pigs and Bacon Bill, 1934 debate -
Thursday, 4 Apr 1935

SECTION 37.

. . . . . . . . .

(c) such licensee shall, if he has duly complied with the provisions of the foregoing paragraphs of this section so far (if at all) as they are applicable to the case, be at liberty to execute the work required by the notice, notwithstanding any covenant, agreement or condition to the contrary contained in any lease or other contract of tenancy under which the premises are held.

Deputy Dillon

I move amendment No. 22 :—

To delete paragraph (c).

I put down this amendment to direct attention to one matter which arises in paragraph (c). It seemed to me that, if elaborate alterations and repairs were necessary, to override the covenants of an agreement entered into between the tenant and the landlord by statute was a rather drastic proceeding. I wondered if it is the intention of the Minister to provide by the Bill that, where a man had covenanted not to do certain things with premises which he held on lease, he should be absolved from these covenants by this Bill. Does he think that equitable from the landlord's point of view ?

Minister for Agriculture

That is what is laid down here. If the Minister asks a licensee to make certain alterations and the licensee says that there is something in his covenant which prevents him the Minister can say : " That does not matter ; go ahead and do them." That is what it amounts to. The same principle has been put into all these Acts where we require alteration of premises—the Dairy Produce Act, the Eggs Act and the Fresh Meat Act. I could not say if we have ever had to resort to this particular section under these Acts, but it appears to be necessary to have such a clause in order to prevent that defence being put up by the licensee.

Deputy Dillon

My submission is that a bacon-curing establishment frequently consists of large open sheds in which the curing or killing operations are carried on. It might well be that these sheds would be as suitable for a garage as for a bacon-curing establishment. Suppose the Minister required the licensee to erect pig stalls or pig pens in one of those open sheds which would mean the erection of concrete divisions ? The landlord would come along and say " the moment that these are erected that property will cease to be of any value as a garage, and as you quit at the conclusion of your lease, I shall be under the obligation of removing all these concrete structures that you have put up, although you covenanted in the lease not to do anything of the kind." Therefore, I suggest that, if a lessee wishes to alter premises which he holds on lease in accordance with the directions of the Minister, he should be entitled to do so, but only on condition that he compensates the lessor by whatever sum would be a fair computation of the damage he has done to the permanent value of the premises for letting purposes.

Deputy Maguire

Would not the responsibility of the lessee towards the lessor be a matter to be decided in a legal way ?

Deputy Dillon

But this section purports to absolve the lessee from all his covenants in the lease.

Deputy Smith

If there was not such a provision as this in the Bill, might not a minor curer who wanted to qualify and to get on the register by improving his premises in accordance with the directions of the Minister, be faced with great difficulties ? Deputy Dillon wants such a man to be allowed to continue in his business, but if there was not a provision the landlord of his premises might put up such unreasonable demands to him as regards agreements, and so on, that the man could never qualify as a minor curer. I think it is quite necessary to have a provision of this kind.

Deputy Dillon

Let me put the position in this way. The Deputy owns a motor garage. I lease it from him for the purpose of curing bacon. When the Deputy is preparing his lease he inserts a covenant that I shall erect no permanent structure on the floor and, in consideration of that covenant, he lets me have the premises at £2 a week. The Minister comes along and tells me to erect 20 pig pens. This section purports to release me from the covenant that the Deputy had inserted in the lease when I went into the garage. The garage would have been worth £1,000 if the Deputy wanted to sell it. But, after the pig pens had been erected on a concrete floor, the garage is worth only £800. Is the Deputy to lose £200 through the operation of this Bill, although he has no interest whatever in the premises as a bacon-curing establishment, and although he was far-sighted enough to put a covenant in the lease that no such structure should be erected ; or, would it be more fair to say that, if the lessee complies with the Minister's orders, he shall be free to do so, but that having done so, he must compensate the lessor for any damage done to the lessor's property following out the Minister's instructions ?

Deputy Smith

The Deputy wants to carry the principle of compensation into everything.

Deputy Belton

Why should this Bill be concerned with the tenure of premises at all ? The Minister wants certain premises for the curing of bacon. It is up to the curer to provide them. I agree with what Deputy Dillon has said about paragraph (c) overriding a contract, but I do not agree with the way in which he developed his argument. I think the Minister should be empowered to say that he wants certain premises for bacon curing and leave it at that. It is for the bacon curer, if he is a tenant to somebody else, to settle with him. If he cannot settle with him, then it is the Minister's concern to see that he gets premises elsewhere.

Deputy Dillon

I agree that if paragraph (c) is deleted then the licensee, if he cannot arrive at an agreement with his lessor, must get premises elsewhere which will meet with the Minister's requirements.

Deputy Keyes

We must assume that any alterations ordered to be carried out to a premises will be such as to enable the business of bacon curing to be carried on in them. If paragraph (c) were deleted you might have unreasonable objections advanced by a lessor, some perhaps suggested to him by the lessee, for the purpose of defeating the intentions of the Minister. I do not think that the carrying out of alterations to premises is going to depreciate the value of them as Deputy Dillon seems to suggest. If the bacon curer continues to carry on his business in them their value is more likely to appreciate.

Deputy Dillon

But, surely, in the case I spoke of a man does not want pig pens in the middle of a motor garage ?

Deputy Smith

But why did he let the premises for bacon curing ?

Deputy Maguire

What is the necessity for having such a provision as this ?

Minister for Agriculture

The necessity is that a licensee might say that his landlord would not allow him to carry out the improvements required.

Deputy Smith

I think it would be unreasonable if, because of some covenant in a lease, a minor curer was prevented from qualifying and bringing his premises up to the standard required. That, surely, would be a great hardship to impose on any man.

Deputy Dillon

This Bill does not deal with minor curers only. It deals with all curers.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided :—Tá, 6 6 ; Níl, 6.

Tá

• Deputy Belton.
• Deputy McGovern.
• Deputy Dillon.
• Deputy O’Donovan.
• Deputy Haslett.
• Deputy Maguire.

Níl.

• Minister for Agriculture.
• Deputy Keyes.
• Deputy O’Reilly.
• Deputy Beegan.
• Deputy Smith.
• Deputy Moore.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 37 agreed to.