§ MR. GINNELLI beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland does the Treasury intervene in cases under the Land Act of 1903 only in opposition to the State and in the interests of the landlords; is the jurisdiction of the Treasury ousted by collusion between a landlord and his tenants for the purpose of extracting public money from a State Department; has the attention of the Treasury been directed to the fact that public money is now being advanced indiscriminately to buy from landlords the occupation, interest, and permanent improvements which are, in law and in equity, the property of the tenant; will he explain why no action has yet been taken to reverse the decision in King-Harman and Hayes, in which a woman, under landlord influence, bought with public money houses certified by the Estates Commissioners to have been already her own property; are the Estates Commissioners bound by that decision; are they applying it in other cases; and is it proposed, by appeal or by legislation, to protect purchasers and the State from the consequences of paying public money for property which belongs not to the so-called vendors but to the so-called purchasers.
In putting the Question, the hon. Member asked Mr. SPEAKER if he could rule that it should be answered by the Irish Minister to whom it was addressed, instead of by an English Minister dependent on an Irish official for the necessary information.
§ * MR. SPEAKERI am afraid I cannot answer that, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will receive a satisfactory Answer by whomsoever the Question may be answered.
§ MR. GINNELLThen I respectfully address the Question to the Attorney-General for Ireland.
§ MR. MCKENNAMy right hon. friend has asked me to reply, but of 577 course if the hon. Member does not wish for the Answer I will not give it.
§ MR. GINNELLLet me have the Answer, please.
§ MR. MCKENNAThere is, of course, no foundation for the imputation contained in the first part of the hon. Member's Question. The entire Question appears to turn upon the decision in the case referred to—;King-Harman and Hayes—;in which the Treasury were not parties or represented in any way, and to imply that in this case there was collusion between vendor and purchaser with the object of extracting public money. In view of the finding of the Judicial Commissioner that there was no suspicion of fraud in this case, and that there was sufficient security for the advance, there was no ground for the intervention of the Treasury and I see no reason for any action on the part of the Department. With reference to the fifth and sixth Questions, I assume that the Estates Commissioners are bound by all judicial decisions. I have no information as to whether they are applying the decision referred to in other cases.
§ MR. GINNELLHow does the hon. Gentleman defend what in ordinary business would be a gross sale to a woman of rights which already belonged to her.
§ MR. MCKENNAThe Treasury act under statute, and having no power to go outside, they were satisfied that the property in question was sufficient security for the amount advanced.
§ MR. GINNELLWhy do the Treasury interfere as against tenants and not as against landlords?
§ MR. MCKENNAI have nothing to add to my Answers.