Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

It has been the case since the 19th century that entails can be barred without compensation. I do not want to dispute the constitutionality or otherwise of a section with a learned academic but one of the aims of the Constitution is that property rights should be exercisable and regulated in accordance with the common good. Entails are not generally synonymous with the common good. They are an anachronism and usually contrary to the common good.

Section 13 was amended on Committee Stage to ensure consistency between sections 13(3) and (4) by providing that the conversion of a fee tail into a fee simple would only take place where any protectorship has ended. That was intended to avoid interference with any existing interest in the land but the contingent interest in a fee tail situation is not one we accept merits provision for compensation. I ask Senator Tuffy to reconsider her amendments in light of the changes made on Committee Stage and suggest that the constitutional argument is not as simple as was pointed out in the article in question.