asked the Minister for Lands and Agriculture if he is aware that over four thousand civil bill processes have been issued in Kerry for land annuities, in September, 1925, and if he can say what proportion of this number concerned one half-year's annuity only; further, whether the Minister can state (1) the total amount of costs in which annuitants have been mulcted by the issue of these processes in Kerry this year; (2) the amount of costs paid by annuitants before the service of processes; whether there is any differentiation in the treatment of chronic defaulters who are many years' annuities and those who are merely late for a single annuity; whether he is aware that there are many complaints as to the methods and inaccuracy of the Collection Branch of the Land Commission, and whether he will have enquiries made into the administration of this branch of his Department; and whether, as less than four hundred of the four thousand annuitants processed last September failed to settle before the cases went into Court, he will restore the issue of the final (six-days) notice, which had customarily been given up to two years ago.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KERRY LAND ANNUITANTS.
Mr. HOGAN
The number of civil bills for arrears of land purchase annuities issued in County Kerry since June last is 2,647, and of these 61 were for more than one instalment.
The Land Commission have no information as to the amount of costs paid as these costs are paid not to the Land Commission, but to the solicitor. It is assumed the chronic defaulters referred to are those persons against whom decrees were obtained and the sheriff made a return of nulla bona. During the past 5 years it has not been possible to sell such holdings in County Kerry. When it is realised that those arrears fall on the county rates by means of deductions from the grants in aid of local taxation it is probable that the difficulty of selling the holdings by public auction would disappear.
With regard to the six-day notice, the issue of this notice was discontinued as from 1st January, 1924, after notice had been given. When they were first instituted it was only necessary to issue them in a limited number of cases, but it became the habit of a very large number of the annuitants to wait for the issue of the notices before paying their annuities instead of paying them when they become due, thus impossing on the Land Commission extra work and expense in the preparation and issue of the notices.
Would the Minister say if he has any intention of going back to the issue of these six-day notices or making any arrangement more satisfactory to his Department than the present arrangement?
Is the Minister prepared to set up an enquiry into the working of certain branches of the administrative staff of the Land Commission and notably the collection branch?
Mr. HOGAN
With regard to Deputy Baxter's question, the facts are that in 1913 and 1914 I should say it was necessary to issue about 5 per cent. of these six-day notices. In 1920 and 1921 that five per cent. went up to 60 or 70 and it had become quite plain that it was a waste of time to send a receivable order because 60 or 70 per cent. ignored it and waited for the six-day notice. This is a question for consideration from the point of view of public expense—to consider whether it is right to continue the farce of sending out the receivable order and the six-day notice or to cease to send out one and make it clear to the people that they are to pay on one notice issued as at present. Personally I think it would be a mistake to go back to the six-day notice. If you did so you would have a repetition of the state of affairs of 1920 or 1921, everyone waiting for the six-day notice and ignoring the receivable order. It would mean, too, a duplication of the work.
In view of the changed conditions of the country now, would not the Minister reconsider this matter?
Is the Minister prepared to discontinue the farce of issuing processes for instalments already paid and making the Land Commission pay costs of solicitors when dismisses are got against them?
Mr. HOGAN
I will undertake to the Deputy to discontinue that farce, but I doubt if it really appeals to anybody. I doubt if the procedure—the farce, to borrow the word of Deputy White— of sending out one notice which everyone knows is going to be ignored and a fortnight after coming along and issuing a further notice, would commend itself to anyone who thinks seriously about it, and I do not see the advantage of it, either from the point of view of the tenants or of the Land Commission. It does not cost a very great amount of money, but it is a waste of money.
Does the Minister contend that no notice whatsover has been sent out? What does he mean about the receivable order being sent out? Does the Minister know that, as a matter of fact, it is not sent out, and that the only notice the tenants get is a reminder from the solicitor, bearing costs?
Can the Minister say, or has he any figures that will enable us to find out, what would be the cost of issuing these six-day notices in any particular year since 1922, compared with the costs recovered by the solicitors as a result of the six-day notice not being issued?
Mr. HOGAN
I can get these figures. There is a notice sent out in the sense that the receivable order is sent out. The tenant-purchaser pays his annuity on the 30th June and the 31st December. He ought to know that. If he does pay on the 30th June, the receivable order is returned to him and he has it in his house with the legend written across it: "The next instalment due is the instalment due on the 31st December." Every tenant knows that perfectly well, and the return of the receivable order is, in fact, a sufficient notice. The suggestion is that we should couple with that the issuing of a six-day notice a fortnight after the event—that is to say, the receivable order is returned in the ordinary way, the gale annuity is paid, let us say, on the 30th June, and if it is not paid, that we should issue a six-day notice in the middle of July. That would be just a waste of money, because, in fact, what was happening was that people were withholding their receivable orders, not paying within fourteen days, as they were requested to do in the receivable order, and waiting for the six-day notice. However, I do not want to make a speech about it. I want to answer one point raised by Deputy Davin with regard to the costs. There is a good deal of talk about costs. There were two thousand civil bills issued in Kerry, and the net costs to the solicitors was fourpence a civil bill.
I am going to allow only one more question, from Deputy Vaughan.
Am I not entitled to put a supplementary question?
Might I ask the Minister how many farms in Kerry have been sold for the last twelve months in the case of chronic defaulters, and is the State Solicitor expediting these proceedings?
Mr. HOGAN
I do not think there has been any sale. There have been a number put up for sale and there have been a number of settlements as a result of putting these farms up for sale.
On a point of order, are we not entitled to ask a relevant question arising out of the Minister's answers? Is there any limit to the number of questions?
Yes, there is a limit. I am the judge of the number and relevancy of supplementary questions, and I now judge that too many supplementary questions and too many irrelevant questions have been asked. This topic is really one for debate and not one for question and answer. As the Minister appears to be full of information, some method other than this one should be adopted to get that information. We have now exhausted the time for questions.
I am sorry, because I had one good shot for him.