When I said at the beginning of my speech last night that Deputy Magennis constituted the chief opposition to the parallel Bill which was introduced last year, I think I gave Deputy Magennis credit for more than he deserved. I should have given pride of place to a former Deputy, Deputy Fitzgibbon, but it is a near thing between them. Deputy Fitzgibbon had the very enthusiastic support of his colleagues from the same constituency. I hope all the University Deputies will at least read the reports of the discussions which took place on the parallel Bill last year, and will agree that the criticism of that Bill was not met by the Minister in charge of the Bill. This Bill, as the Minister has pointed out, is a reproduction to a very great extent of the Bill which expired in August last. It is fuller, and possibly even more drastic in some respects, than the Bill of last year. When the Minister began to speak last night, I had not an opportunity of looking through this Bill, and it was rather from the speech he made and the description he gave, that I was able to come to any conclusion as to the merits of the Bill. I have since had an opportunity of making a very casual perusal of the Bill, and I find that pretty well everything that was in last year's Bill is included in this year's Bill. On the introduction of last year's Bill, Deputy Magennis rightly and lucidly described it as a ferocious Bill, not merely drastic, but ferocious, and suggested that the Short Title should be altered so as to read—"An act for the outlawry of certain debtors and the ferocious destruction of same." Now, unless Deputy Magennis has undergone a conversion, I take it that he will be equally eloquent and concise in his criticism of the provisions of this Bill. The Minister, in introducing last year's Bill, defended it on the grounds that the country at the time was in a state bordering upon anarchy; that there was no respect for the law; that the people did not acknowledge debts because they felt that the law was powerless, and he said it was necessary to bring in a temporary coercion measure. He described the state of the country at the time, and summed it up in those words: "This is a time when we cannot stand on technicalities or artificial limitations of functions, limitations which grew up as a matter of convenience, and should not survive the convenience." Further, he said: "An unorthodox situation would have to be met by unorthodox methods. We cannot stand on technicalities or an artificial limitation of functions."
He was supported by the Minister for Agriculture, who said:—"In times like these we should not stand on technicalities. We want to get the law functioning, and I make the confession that we are prepared to take rough and ready methods to get the law functioning and to stand over them." Well, the rough and ready methods, of course have, unfortunately, been taken in too many cases, but the justification was made in language such as I have quoted. They were not to stand on technicalities because times were extraordinary and abnormal. The law must be altered because of temporary illegalities and failure to recognise the responsibilities between debtors and creditors, and, generally, technicalities must be waived aside and rough and ready methods of law must be applied in the case of the collection of debts and the enforcement of decrees.
The Minister comes now with the same measure, but he does not plead that rough and ready methods have to be taken. He does not say technicalities have to be waived aside. He utters an argument here which is an argument intended to apply to a permanent change of the law relating to bailiffs and the reinforcement of decrees. He will argue for a change in the law respecting the reinforcement of decrees, an argument which may be applicable to a change of law, changing the powers and authorities of bailiffs and under-sheriffs. He uses that argument to introduce a Bill which, he said, last year was waiving aside technicalities and which the Minister for Agriculture practically said was a means of enforcing rough and ready methods. It was not supported, and could not be supported, as a permanent method of carrying out Court Decrees.
But what is the position now? Does the Minister again say that the state of the country is just as it was last year, when he argued this measure was necessary? Does he mean to say that this ought to be the permanent law of the land? It cannot be the latter, because he proposes a measure which is temporary—only to last for 12 months— presumably because he recognises it is not suitable for the ordinary law, but that it is extraordinary legislation framed to meet the situation as it was a year ago in regard to the collection of debts. The Minister does not say that. He merely says there are 7,000 decrees outstanding. But let me ask the Dáil at once to recognise the position. Last year's Bill was passed for six months.
It expired at the end of August. We are now in March, and presumably the six months that have elapsed since the expiry of the last Bill was a period during which the old law was operating.
The Minister now comes forward and asks for a renewal and an extension of the extraordinary powers embodied in the six-months' Act of last year. I do not think he has made a case for that. I would like to know what was the position regarding the enforcement of decrees and distraints during the six months that the old Act was working. What has been the position since that time in regard to decrees and distraints, and what is the position to-day? We are told that there are 7,000 decrees outstanding, representing a sum of £170,000. Of course, 5,000 of these were for private debts, representing £150,000, or an average of £30 per decree. That suggests to me that the debts that have not been collected and the decrees that have been obtained are, in the main, for small amounts. It may be that the decrees ought to be enforced and that the debts ought to be collected. I am not pronouncing any judgment on that, but I want to traverse the idea that was expressed in the Minister's speech last night, that the credit of the country depends upon the powers of the under-sheriff to enforce the decrees of the Courts. I deny that utterly. If it did so depend, then it would be a bad lookout for the country. If the credit of the country is not to be based upon a normal, reasonable amount of honesty, irrespective of the decrees of the Courts, then the country has no credit and should not have. But the Minister's habit of mind seems to be like that of the Minister for Finance: "Get powers, do not impose any checks upon the Executive, trust the Executive and let the machine of law take its course, subject only to the discretion of the Executive."
I have argued many times that the law must be allowed to function without the interference of the Executive. But that imposes upon me—if it does not upon the Dáil—the necessity for preventing the Executive, or the officers of the Courts, from having powers which may be legally applied tyrannically. The Minister says that the very existence of these powers helps the under-sheriff to collect debts without much difficulty. Possibly so. Does that justify the Oireachtas in giving powers which they do not expect and which they do not intend shall be applied, but which may be applied legally? I maintain that we have a duty not merely to the creditors but to the debtors. I would describe this Bill rather as a Bill intended to encourage the giving of credit to poor people, to encourage the gombeen man in giving credit, to encourage the money-lender to lend small sums and to encourage the "tick" draper; to encourage that class of person who is going through the country pressing people to buy on credit, getting them to go into debt and then, with these powers which may be used, once the Court has issued a decree, to over-ride the debtor in a manner which hitherto has never been thought desirable or wise. The Minister has always spoken regarding the creditor. I put it to him and to the Dáil, that the creditor—the man who gives credit for the sale of his goods—has some responsibility, and that when he takes a risk he knows the risk he is taking when he gives that credit, and he will count this risk and that. As a matter of fact, we ought not to encourage this giving of credit by saying, as we almost do to the debtor, that the bedclothes may be seized, and that the furniture, the clothing, the property of any kind, of the husband or the brother or the daughter or the uncle who lives with the debtor is also seizable, and that any goods may be seized at the discretion of the Sheriff and taken across the water, or to any part of this country, to be sold at his discretion at any time, and that the charges which he may decide as reasonable shall be charged against the debtor.
There has been very good reason for protecting the debtor and limiting the powers of the Sheriff, and so far no case has been made for the removal of these checks in their entirety as they are under this Bill. I acknowledge that the parochial system may have to be altered; that the idea of the local pound may occasionally work detrimentally to the debtor, and that it is not always satisfactory, and I would be quite prepared to welcome any change in respect of the ordinary powers of the Sheriff's officer. But I object strongly to the kind of powers that are given under this Bill. I do not think a case has been made for it now, any more than was made last year, notwithstanding the fact that it was passed.
The Minister took credit to himself for the designation of being the bailiff's pal. He said that civilisation practically rested upon the powers of the bailiff. I think that the Minister, in the arguments he used for this Bill, rather shows he misunderstands the relations that have grown up between the citizens and the State in respect of law. If we are going to assume, in making laws for the collection of debts or the enforcement of decrees, that every debtor is criminally-minded, that every decree obtained against a man ought to be enforced, because he could pay but would not, we are sure of going wrong in our administration and in our legislation. We have been hearing from the Ministerial Benches, time and time again, stories as to the state of the country. Farmers have told us about the state of agriculture, and we have read accounts in the newspapers lately showing how many bankruptcies and failures there have been through the country, and I again suggest, as I did last year, that it is not a time for passing a Bill of this kind, strengthening the powers of the Sheriff and encouraging creditors to press debtors as is done by this Bill, and as was done last year. It is rather a time to encourage leniency in the case of debts, and we ought not to assume, as is done through this Bill, that debtors are criminals, and that the protection against arbitrary action on the part of Sheriffs should be removed, leaving them open to the discretion of the under-sheriff, who may be a responsible man, but who is only to be appointed for twelve months, and with whom the Minister, I believe, has acknowledged he has no right to interfere. I say a case for the Bill has not been made out. A case may have been made for the enlargement of the powers of the Sheriff, but a case has not been made for extraordinary powers to last for twelve months, such as are outlined in this Bill, and I propose to vote against the second reading.
