asked the Minister for Local Government whether, in view of his reply to a question on 14th February, 1952, to the effect that copies of proposals to dispose by sale to tenants of the houses erected by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Land Trust had been circulated for his observations, he will state if, under the proposals, the children of deceased tenants who are at present in occupation will receive the benefits of the proposed legislation; and, further, if he will recommend that the children at present in occupation will not be dispossessed of the homes of their parents.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Soldiers' and Sailors' Land Trust Houses.
Mr. Byrne
The Irish Sailors' and Soldiers' Land Trust Bill introduced in the British Parliament confers powers on the Trust, subject to and in accordance with Treasury regulations, to sell Trust cottages to men for whose benefit the Trust was established (ex-servicemen of the 1914-1918 war), or to the widow of any such man dying before or within six months of the commencement of the Act, provided, in the latter case, that he or she has given notice of a desire to buy within that six months and that certain conditions as regards residence in the cottage prior to his death, and occupation of it after his death, have been fulfilled. The Bill does not extend to the children of deceased tenants.
As the Bill proposes to enable the Trust to give effect to the agreement which was the subject of a public announcement on 8th May, 1951, there would be no point in my making the recommendation suggested by the Deputy.
Mr. Byrne
Will the Minister say whether he made any recommendations to protect the children of tenants who died even within the last year or two? Further, is the Minister aware that three cases have recently been decided in the court in which ejectment proceedings were taken against the families of the ex-soldiers and the judge has temporarily held them up, giving three months' extension for the families to get housing accommodation? The Minister in another capacity knows that there is no housing accommodation available. I would ask him—and I would ask the House— to support me in this, to recommend that the children of tenants who have been in the houses since the 1914-18 war should not be evicted now and that they should get the benefit of the legislation that is going through West-minister. I hope they will be allowed to remain as a result of the Minister's recommendation.
This Bill in question proposes to implement an agreement made in 1951. Anything not provided in that agreement will not be covered by the Bill. The Deputy will agree that there is no point in having an agreement as between two Governments unless its provisions are given effect to. Any recommendation that I would make in regard to this matter could have no bearing at all upon the proposals that are necessary to implement the agreement to which I have referred.
In so far as the exserviceman or his widow buys one of these cottages, I take it that for the future the family will be protected inasmuch as the father or the mother will have the right to convey the property to a son or daughter, as the case may be. The only people, therefore, who stand in danger of being evicted are those against whom court orders have recently been got or may be got before the houses are actually purchased, and that will, I take it, be a small number. I appreciate the Minister's difficulties in this matter, but there cannot be many people involved. Would the Minister consider sympathetically the question of asking the Trust to deal sympathetically with the sons or daughters of ex-servicemen who occupy these houses with a view to leaving them in possession of the houses, even as tenants, if it is not possible under the new legislation to permit them to purchase the houses in which their father or mother, now deceased, resided?
The Trust will immediately reply to all these requests that they are bound to take whatever action the law prescribes. I am not in a position to say what the agreement that was reached in 1951 between the two Governments provided for. I read the agreement, but naturally I could not say right off just what is provided for in that agreement. All I am saying in reply to the question addressed to me by Deputy Byrne is that the proposals for legislation before the British House of Commons are proposals that are designed to implement the agreement that was reached between the two Governments. These proposals will do that, and will do no more. No intervention, no request, of mine would have the least effect. It could not be expected that it would have the least effect in altering these proposals in any shape or form.
Arising from the supplementary questions and the Minister's answer thereto, are we to take it that there is an agreement now between the two Governments which will put these houses over and above the ordinary Landlord and Tenant Act in the country? Is the Minister aware that, in all local authorities, the practice has been well established that, where tenants die, their children are regarded as the tenants in succession. If this is to be taken as a headline, that, where the original tenant dies, we are to evict the children because they have no rights, it is a matter that would have to be seriously considered again in the public interest.
I do not know exactly what the Deputy has in mind, but what I have in mind is that discussions took place between the representatives of the two Governments with a view to arriving at an arrangement by which these Trust houses could be sold to the tenants. I take it that the very best possible case was made for the very best arrangement, that is, as far as our people were concerned. Finally, an agreement was made. The agreement provided for certain things and to the extent that it did not cover the children of tenants, to which this question refers, I suppose it was disappointing from our point of view. However, the agreement is there. The agreement was announced in May, 1951, and it was necessary to introduce proposals for legislation in the British Parliament. The proposals that are before the British Parliament, I understand, cover the full and complete terms of that agreement, and that is all I can say or do about it.