This is the essential section in the Bill, and I want to repeat my opposition. The case was made in 1923 for such a Bill that it was necessary at the time in view of the extraordinary condition of the country and the inability to enforce the ordinary law and enforce decrees by the ordinary processes. The second Bill of 1924 was passed after six months' experience of the previous Bill. It, again, was a temporary Bill, dealing with temporary circumstances, which gave the Minister and the officers of the courts extraordinary powers, which, in my opinion, could not be justified except in extraordinary circumstances during abnormal times. The figures presented to Deputies by the Minister last week do not, to my mind, prove the value of this Act or, in fact, the purpose which was claimed for it. A year ago it was reported that there were 7,000 judgments in hands, representing £170,000. After twelve months' quietude, when the powers that the Act gave were in operation for the greater part of the time, we have still 5,712 decrees unexecuted, representing £107,000. The difference is considerable, no doubt, but it does not seem to me that special legislation has secured what was intended, so that there is no justification for the continuance of these exceptional powers. The amounts that are owing are generally owing by small debtors, and the powers in the Act are being enforced to a disproportionate extent against small debtors. I think the powers are too great to place in the hands of any officer of the courts.
I do not intend to go into an examination of the sections of the Bill, but, in my opinion, there is no justification for them, and the Minister has not made any case. He gave certain figures which show that there has been a decrease, and that there is a certain large number of judgments awaiting execution. He has not shown us that the extraordinary powers have assisted to any great degree in executing these judgments. The extraordinary circumstances and the abnormal state of the country, pleaded as a justification for the Bill last year, and for the Bill the previous year, cannot now be said to exist. On these grounds I think the Act should be allowed to expire and that no further temporary legislation of this kind should be enacted. I therefore oppose this section of the Bill.
