I move that the Committee disagree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:—
In page 3, paragraph (b), at the end of the paragraph a new sub-paragraph as follows added:—
(vi) a certificate under the Common Seal of the Land Commission certifying that the purchaser has failed to comply with a direction under this section shall be prima facie evidence for all purposes of the fact so certified.
As the Bill stands, the Dáil has accepted Section 2, sub-section (b) (v) and the Seanad has also accepted that section. The proposal in this amendment merely confuses the legislative intent, because, while the Dáil and Seanad have accepted the certificate of the Land Commission as conclusive evidence and while that stands part of the Bill, the proposal in the amendment is to add a sub-paragraph to paragraph (b) (v) of sub-section (2) to the effect that the certificate of the Land Commission shall be prima facie evidence. This addition is entirely contradictory of the Bill as accepted by both Dáil and Seanad.
I would be unfair to the Senator who proposed the amendment if I left the Dáil under the impression that he proposed the amendment exactly as it stands. The Senator, I am sure, gave a good deal of thought to the Bill, recognising the evil which the Bill is framed to mitigate, and sought to give to the Land Commission powers which  he considered adequate, at the same time striving to retain to the courts certain powers which he considered the courts should have. He therefore, proposed two amendments which were interdependent. The first amendment meant the deletion of certain words from the Bill as it stands in sub-section (b) (v) of Section 2 and with the deletion of these words and the addition of certain others, he drew up the particular amendment before the House. The Senator very clearly understood the purport of his two amendments and clarified his ideas very well on the whole subject of the amendment. Yet, the Senator rejected the first amendment, on which the second amendment now before the House depended for its efficiency or effect, and because the Seanad did so reject the other amendment this particular one is useless and I suggest it should be rejected.