I agree with the Minister that this is, to a very large extent, indeed to an overwhelming extent, a Committee Stage Bill. In fact, I propose to-day to confine myself to remarks on one aspect of it, an aspect on which the Minister touched, but no more than touched. I frankly confess I do not understand why the provisions of this Bill in relation to real estate have been limited to what I may describe as the technical process of devolution.
The Bill provides that in relation to real estate it will devolve just as personal estate or as chattel real estate. So much to the good, but it seems to me illogical to do that in this Bill and at the same time not to tackle the problem of the beneficial interest in that real estate. I would have preferred that the Bill did not even pass the technical devolution of real estate to the executor now and had deferred that until the more comprehensive Bill of which the Minister speaks, rather than that the technical aspect should be dealt with now leaving over the beneficial aspect.
In these days I do not think there is any case—certainly in the country—to retain the principle of heirship-at-law. Too often one sees in the country a small piece of land that is freehold and attached to it a piece of land that has been bought out under the Land Acts. It occasionally arises, through the machinations of the Land Commission, that they make an enlargement to a parent, freehold holding. In such a case, whether it is used as part of the same farm, sometimes part of the same field, the freehold portion of the land and the portion of land bought out under the Land Acts go on an intestacy to different people and that causes quite unnecessary trouble.
In addition, there is the provision that arises in respect of voluntary registration under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891. Such a voluntary registration does not mean that the land registered passes as personality, but it continues to pass as realty. We have also the cases that arose some years ago where land that had been bought from the Land Commission as realty before vesting was declared also to be realty in the hands of the allottees put on it by the Land Commission before they would come under the 1891 Act. It seems to me that it would be desirable to ensure that all the lands in Ireland—and by the word "lands" one includes the word "houses"—should pass beneficially in the same way on the death of an owner if that owner had not made a will.
I hope that it will be possible for the Minister to indicate that he will not wait for a more comprehensive measure to provide that. He could do so now in Part II of this Bill. I am completely unable to understand what case can be made for the introduction of Part II before the introduction of a comprehensive measure unless, of course, the Minister has already set his face against making the devolution of real estate the same as that of chattel real property, and I doubt very much if he has.
This is not a question of Party politics in any way. The bones of this Bill have been on the stocks for a considerable time; they were there in my time and I know that certain of my colleagues, as well as myself, expressed views from time to time that it would be desirable not to change the beneficial ownership as well. I should like the Minister to indicate whether he obtained views that can be published on this Bill from the bodies that would be concerned with it once it has been enacted—the Bar Council, the Incorporated Law Society and so forth.
If the Bill has been issued without consultation with those bodies in its existing form then I would ask the Minister to have a very protracted period between now and the Committee Stage so as to enable adequate time for consideration to be given to the Bill, not merely by the bodies I have mentioned but also by the general members of the legal profession, barristers and solicitors.
It seems to me that we can discuss various details more accurately on the Committee Stage but with a view to having my mind cleared before that stage, if the Minister is able to answer this question I should like him to do so: is it clear that Section 6, sub-section (1), (b), (ii) has not got the effect of barring the entail? I think it has only the effect of saying that the property vests in the executor and that the subsequent claimant entail can claim that property from the executor beneficial. If I am wrong in that, and if the Minister wishes to bar the entail in this way, I suggest it is a very untidy way of doing it. I think I have interpreted the section correctly but it is desirable that it should be stated beyond doubt.
The Minister did not give us any indication of when his comprehensive measure is likely to come along. All Ministers hate to say when further legislation is likely to come but perhaps, as well as dealing with the one feature to which I have referred, the Minister would tell us what other features are under examination for that comprehensive measure. By giving us such indication we might be able to judge when it is likely he will be able to come to the House with the comprehensive measure. If the Long Title permits it I would suggest very strongly that between now and the Committee Stage the Minister should change Part II in such a way that the beneficial interest will follow the technical devolution to the executor.