I ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Land Act, 1933, by deleting therefrom the provisions as to the levy by county registrars on warrants of the Land Commission for arrears of payments due to the Land Commission. Is it the intention of the Government to provide opportunities for the Second Reading of this Bill?
Supplementary Estimate. - Land Bill, 1934—First Stage
We are opposing its introduction.
This Bill stands in the name of Deputy Cosgrave and myself and proposes to amend the Land Act of 1933 by deleting therefrom Section 28, which provides "where any person has failed to pay money due and payable by him to the Land Commission, in respect of a purchase annuity, an annual sum equivalent to a purchase annuity, an additional sum, payment in lieu of rent, interest in lieu of rent, interest on purchase money, rent of a holding, or rent payable under an agreement for the letting of a parcel of land for temporary convenience, it shall be lawful for the Land Commission, if and when the Land Commission thinks proper, to issue to the county registrar of any county in which the defaulter resides, or has a place of business, a warrant in the prescribed form." It amounted to this: That where the Land Commission had such a claim as I referred to, they were entitled to issue to the county registrar of the county in which the tenant purchaser lived a warrant on which the county registrar was entitled, as though it were a judgment of the District Court or the Circuit Court, to get the sheriff to make a distraint on the property of the tenant purchaser.
The history of that section is relevant to the Bill which is at present before the House. The principle enshrined in the Land Act, 1933, was first adumbrated before the committee sitting on the Courts of Justice Act, 1929 or 1930. When the suggestion was mooted before that committee several lawyers, justices and, I think, judges were called upon to give evidence, and these gentlemen, with unanimous voice, condemned the proposal. As far as I am aware, it was supported and recommended to that committee practically by Mr. E. Herlihy alone, and in recommending it Mr. Herlihy qualified his recommendation in two very remarkable and pertinent answers. In Question 6333 Mr. Herlihy was asked if under this scheme he would have to send the sheriff to the tenant purchaser who had habitually paid his annuities in the past, but who was now apparently withholding if for some unprecedented reason, and he replied:
"No. We would not think of doing it. We would send no case to the sheriff in which a tenant said that he had not the money to pay now."
Further on, Mr. Herlihy was questioned by a member of the committee as to what he would do under this new system, if there was default by a tenant purchaser (Question 6372):
"Under this new system of yours, would there be any such elasticity as that?—There would, precisely the same."
The elasticity referred to was the capacity of the courts to extend the time for payment in special cases. Mr. Herlihy replied:
"There would, precisely the same. The point is that we cannot kill the goose with the golden eggs; we cannot seize the cow or sheep or horse which would constitute the means of paying the next instalment. We have to keep that in our minds; it is a recurring debt."
So that we recognise from the evidence given before that committee, in support of the principle enshrined in Section 28, that that principle was advocated only with the qualification that this procedure of issuing a warrant to the sheriff to make distress would not be proceeded with against persons who were unable to pay. When this Act was before this House as a Bill many of us pointed out that if people have no tribunal before which they could go, in the certainty that they will get a fair and impartial hearing, when they believe themselves to be labouring under a grievance, instead of adopting the constitutional and correct procedure of which they had been deprived, they will resort to the only other procedure available to them, and that is direct action.
Dr. Ryan
If encouraged.
The object with which we are introducing this Bill at the present time is to provide every citizen of this State with a constitutional and legal remedy whereby to ventilate his grievance, if he believes himself to be labouring under one. Bear in mind that President de Valera at the present time is waging war most vigorously, with the whole resources of this State, in order to vindicate before the eyes of the world his right to go into an impartial tribunal to decide whether he is liable to pay certain moneys that are claimed against him, and the very gentleman who is prepared to wreck the whole economic structure of this country in order to vindicate that right denies exactly the same right to his own fellow-countrymen when they ask nothing more than the right to appear before an impartial tribunal, to state their grievances, to get an impartial verdict upon them and to secure, in a constitutional and peaceable and law-abiding way, redress for what they believe to be a legitimate grievance imposed on them by the Government that seeks to collect these annuities from them. It is interesting to observe that so long as President de Valera is spending in a lavish way the entire national resources, in order to vindicate an international right which the Fianna Fáil Government claims on behalf of this country, they are patriots, lineal descendants of Caithlin Ni Houlihan, but the unfortunate farmer who makes a demonstration in order to claim his constitutional right to the protection of the courts is a saboteur, a traitor, a gentleman who is trying to tear down the State, and the very people who call him that take from him the only method he has of appealing in a constitutional and law-abiding way to the courts, that ought to be there, to protect his interest and to ventilate his grievance if he has one.
Our position is simply this: Under the Land Act of 1933, there is a statutory obligation upon every tenant purchaser in this country to pay so much of his annuity as is described in that Statute and those who are able to pay are under a statutory obligation to do so, and we think that is a bad law. We think it is a law that ought to be repealed, but the only way to get rid of that law is to have it amended by Oireachtas Eireann. At the same time, neither Oireachtas Eireann nor any other body or power in this country has the right to place upon the citizens of the country a statutory obligation to pay something they are not able to pay and, therefore, it is absolutely essential that the person making the plea that he is physically incapacitated from complying with the letter of the Statute should have some court to go into to secure an impartial decision on the merits of his representation, so that, after that hearing, the genuineness of his plea of inability to pay will be made clear before his neighbours and before the country at large, and so that it will be open no longer to Fianna Fáil T. D.'s, to arraign before the country the man who is genuinely driven to the border of destitution and who finds himself unable, for the first time, to meet the obligations that he originally undertook in respect of his land annuity, as making a false plea and as refusing to pay something he is well able to pay.
There is much in this Land Act of 1933 that Deputies on this side of the House would like to amend, but this Bill, which is before the House now, seeks to amend the Act in no controversial particular. It is deliberately drafted to extend no further than the very minimum of justice's demands, in order that public peace may be effectively preserved throughout the State; it is drafted with no other purpose in view than to secure for every citizen of the State the right to go into the courts of the country and defend his interests against a neighbour or any Government Department that may make him a defendant. It would be wasting the time of the House to labour the principle underlying this Bill at too great length. It is manifest to any reasonable man or woman in this country that it is absolutely vital that free men should have the right to go into the court, where they labour under a sense of grievance, and it must be manifest to any responsible man or woman in this country that if you take that right from them, free men, if they are free men, must and will——
Cut down trees.
——resort to the only other means available to them to defend their constitutional rights. If a man believes honestly and sincerely that genuine injustice is being done to him, that the Statutes of the country are being used for a purpose for which it was never intended they should be used, that the written law of the country is being used to place burdens upon him that he, literally, is physically unable to meet, that man should have two alternatives. One is the method of anarchy, and that is to resist the law by physical force. No responsible man in this country will advise any citizen of this State to that course. On the contrary, any person coming for advice in such a dilemma will be told by any responsible man that his duty is not to take the law into his own hands, but to go to the courts of the country and there to state his case in the certainty that he will get justice and that nothing in the nature of injustice will be inflicted upon him by the judiciary. If, on receipt of that advice, a citizen of this State replies: "But the Land Act of 1933 has taken from me my right to go into the court and make my case," what answer can be made?
It is for that dilemma, it is in order to end definitely that situation, that this Bill is moved. It is in order to put it into the mouths of all of us to say, to any man suffering under a sense of deep grievance, to any man threatened with loss of patience, who may be urged into unconstitutional and foolish and illegal methods: "the courts are there and you have a right to go into them; there is a constitutional method of redress available to you, and it is wrong morally and physically to resort to direct action of any kind in the vindication of your rights while there is the machinery of the courts available to you." It is in order to create that situation that we move this Bill. I urge on the Minister, with all the emphasis at my disposal, to reconsider his opposition to this Bill and to reopen the courts of the country to the people and to provide free men with the opportunity of making their case. I urge that on the Minister, in deep anxiety, in order to preserve the peace of the country and to secure that no individual or no body of men will have any excuse or any appearance of justification for going out deliberately for the purpose of breaking the law. This is a matter in which all sides in this country could co-operate in securing justice and in the preservation of public peace; but co-operation to this end can only be secured by providing for the people the elementary right of appeal to the courts of the country for justice. I ask for that right to be restored to our people in order that all elements in this country may co-operate in the maintenance of law and order, peace and tranquillity, throughout the State.
A chinn Comhairle, we ask the House to refuse a First Reading to this Bill. It may be pointed out, and can be pointed out, that only last year the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Act of 1933 were discussed here exhaustively from every possible angle in the course of the debates on this Bill. On that occasion Deputy after Deputy on the Opposition side made arguments against this section, but the Oireachtas decided in favour of the section and it duly became law.
We suggest that the introduction of a Bill of this kind is an abuse of the parliamentary machine. It is obviously put forward as an excuse to raise much wider issues. Such issues ought properly to be brought forward, where deemed advisable, in the form of Motions rather than Bills. There are, however, other grounds in the nature of the Bill itself. Section 28 has been in operation for a whole year and an opportunity has been given for the Land Commission to have that examined and see what the position is and how it operates in practice. The Land Commission are satisfied that it has saved a considerable amount of money in legal costs and alleviated a good deal of hardship that arose in that way, and that it has also saved considerable time and speeded up collection.
It must be borne in mind that the powers that were taken in Section 28 were in addition to, and not in substitution for, the powers that the Land Commission had in regard to collection of annuities already. Now, there are a few facts to which the attention of Deputies might be drawn as to the operation of this particular section. For the first gale after the enactment of Section 28 of the Land Act of 1933— that is, the November-December gale of 1933—a total sum of £1,220,000 was collectable by the Land Commission under the head of land purchase annuities——
£1,220,000.
Yes, £1,220,000 was collectable from some 452,000 payers. At the end of October last there was in arrear only £192,000 of that sum, by 47,500 defaulters. That is to say, roughly 84 per cent. of the annuities collectable had then been collected from some 90 per cent. of the payers. The comparatively small amount that is shown there as arrears is attributed to a great extent to the operation of this Section 28. Acting under that section, the Land Commission—having sent out their usual six-day notices and having allowed ample time for payment much in excess of the six days—issued warrants to the county registrars in respect of some 57,000 defaulters who owed £1 or upwards on the November-December gale of 1933. As a result, over 35,000—that is over 60 per cent.— of these warrants have now been returned as collected, representing a total sum of over £180,000, and the remainder are gradually coming in.
In many counties the warrants for this gale have been practically cleared up. For example, in County Monaghan only one warrant remains in the hands of the sheriff; in County Louth eight; in County Donegal 20; and in County Leitrim 40. Surely the Land Commission, taking those cases as a basis, can feel satisfied with the progress that has been made in spite of all the well organised campaign of obstruction and intimidation that has been carried on to prevent the collection of these annuities, and can feel well satisfied with the speeding-up facilities that have been given to them by the operation of Section 28.
As regards the May-June gale of 1934, over 57 per cent. of the total amount of the land purchase annuities collectable has been collected already from 75 per cent. of the payers. To illustrate the contrast between the burden of costs on the defaulter under the old system and the new, an actual case may be cited where a sum of £1 19s. Od. has been recovered under the Section 28 procedure at a total cost of 5/6 to the defaulter, where the cost of civil bill proceedings would have been 15/6 if recovered by the sheriff on a decree. If you compare the saving of 10/- in a single case with the total number concerned, the economies effected by the operation of Section 28 of the 1933 Act are apparent; and this saving is all a saving, not to the State but to the defaulters themselves.
How many cattle were seized for the £1 19s. Od.?
I should want notice of that question. I know that recently we are getting fairly good prices for them through various gentlemen down the country who are members of the Party to which the Deputy opposite belongs.
The Minister is talking of the costs of collection.
Now, with regard to the Revenue Commissioners, they have the same powers that are given under this section here and we have not heard any complaint from any of these people. Some of the farmers, in spite of all the sales, do pay income tax, I believe, and some of the farmers, about whom Deputies opposite are so much concerned, pay income tax, and there has been no protest against these powers being given to the Revenue Commissioners for the purpose of income tax recovery. Deputy Dillon, in speaking on the introduction of this Bill, seems to try to convey to the House that this Bill is being introduced in order to avoid or prevent certain illegal activities that, he is aware, were carried on a good deal and for quite a long time in this country before there was any protest from any responsible person on the benches opposite.
That is not true.
The Minister said "responsible person."
It is true. As far as we have been able to discover, no protest was made until Deputy Cosgrave made his statement—less than a month ago, I think—a statement which, certainly, was not an unequivocal demand that these activities should cease, but was rather a sort of facing-both-ways speech. Until that, nothing that had been brought to my notice or nothing that I have seen would show me that there was anything except silent encouragement; and whenever there was anything in the way of advice, it was a hint that the people were driven to this by desperation; in other words, "Go ahead with it, and it will probably help to get this Government out of office." Deputy Dillon's point is that the people who engage in these illegal activities are the hard-pressed annuitants; the people who cannot pay; the people who are in such a desperate position that they will go out blocking roads, wrecking railways and so on—that these are all annuitants. There have been a number of cases before the Military Tribunal. Undoubtedly, these warriors have been very apologetic, very contrite and so on. What is the position with regard to them? Hardly a single case has arisen where an annuitant was involved or where they went to seize stock. We had a batch of cases the other day and the whole defence was: "We were led into this; we were in this organisation"—this wonderful League of Youth —"we were misled into doing this in our innocence; we had no grievance ourselves; we had paid our annuities." Another man said that he had got time to pay his annuity. There is no use in Deputy Dillon getting excited——
What defendant alleged that he was led into doing this by the League of Youth?
A whole lot of them.
Not a single one.
Take the Meath case yesterday. You can inquire about that. That is a definite case. It has been stated and the Deputies opposite are well aware of it, that these people in apologising for their illegal activity have given particulars of the meetings of the League of Youth that they have held when they decided to embark on this campaign. If the people opposite desired to restrain those people—because we have heard a lot about its being a very well disciplined organisation—if they desire to stop that campaign, and if they admit that they have any control over it, why did they not stop it?
Withdraw the "Harriers" and the lorries.
If there is no other way to discipline these people; if they are going to continue their illegal activities, they are going to be dealt with.
You know that we have paid our land annuities more than once.
Ask Deputy Fagan why he did not pay his.
Withdraw the "Harriers" and the lorries. We do not want bloodshed.
This Government does not want bloodshed. People like Deputy Bennett, who say they are in a political fight, can pay, but will not pay. Is that the sort of example that is going to stop this wholesale system of illegal activities?
We are with you for peace.
Is the Minister aware that he can pay? He ought not to make statements——
You said it anyhow.
You should have written to the newspaper then.
You said it anyhow.
I never said any such thing.
Dr. Ryan
That does not say that it is true.
I suggest that the Bill has been introduced, not to try to do what Deputy Dillon suggested in his statement, but to do the very opposite —to give encouragement to these people to keep up the fight against the payment of annuities. That is the whole reason and the whole objective behind it. If not, it is a smoke-screen to try and cover up the activities of the illegal bodies which had been associated with the Party opposite. I do not want to go into any further details in this matter. I think it is obvious to anybody that the purpose behind the Bill is not to try and help what are described as the hard-pressed farmers, but to try and strengthen and give new life, if it were possible to do it, to the ever-simmering rabble that follows behind the Party opposite.
To stop the five shilling cow grabbers. You will hear more about it.
Deputies must cease speaking (even by way of interjection) when the Ceann Comhairle rises.
Question put: Dáil divi ded; Tá, 60; Níl, 76.
Tá.
|
Alton, Ernest Henry.Anthony, Richard.Beckett, James Walter. Brennan, Michael.Broderick, William Joseph.Burke, James Michael.Burke, Patrick.Byrne, Alfred.Coburn, James.Cosgrave, William T.Costello, John Aloysius.Curran, Richard.Daly, Patrick.Davis, Michael.Davitt, Robert Emmet.Desmond, William.Dillon, James M.Dockrell, Henry Morgan.Doyle, Peadar S.Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.Fagan, Charles.Finlay, John.Fitzgerald, Desmond.Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.Haslett, Alexander.Holohan, Richard.Keating, John.Kent, William Rice.Lynch, Finian.MacDermot, Frank. |
Belton, Patrick.Bennett, George Cecil.Bourke, Séamus. MacEoin, Seán.McFadden, Michael Og.McGilligan, Patrick.McGovern, Patrick.McMenamin, Daniel.Minch, Sydney B.Morrisroe, James.Morrissey, Daniel.Mulcahy, Richard.Murphy, James Edward.Myles, James Sproule.Nally, Martin.O'Connor, Batt.O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.O'Leary, Daniel.O'Mahony, The.O'Neill, Eamonn.O'Reilly, John Joseph.O'Sulivan, Gearóid.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Redmond, Bridget Mary.Reidy, James.Rice, Vincent.Roddy, Martin.Rowlette, Robert James.Wall, Nicholas. |
Níl.
|
Aiken, Frank.Bartley, Gerald.Beegan, Patrick.Blaney, Neal.Boland, Patrick.Bourke, Daniel.Brady, Brian.Brady, Seán.Breathnach, Cormac.Breen, Daniel.Briscoe, Robert.Browne, William Frazer.Cleary, Mícheál.Concannon, Helena.Cooney, Eamonn.Corish, Richard.Corkery, Daniel.Corry, Martin John.Crowley, Fred. Hugh.Crowley, Timothy.Daly, Denis.Derrig, Thomas.De Valera, Eamon.Doherty, Hugh.Donnelly, Eamon.Dowdall, Thomas P.Everett, James.Flinn, Hugo V.Flynn, John.Flynn, Stephen.Fogarty, Andrew.Geoghegan, James.Gibbons, Seán.Goulding, John.Hales, Thomas.Hayes, Seán.Houlihan, Patrick.Keely, Séamus P. |
Kehoe, Patrick.Kelly, James Patrick.Kelly, Thomas.Kennedy, Michael Joseph.Keyes, Michael.Killilea, Mark.Kilroy, Michael.Kissane, Eamonn.Lemass, Seán F.Little, Patrick John.Lynch, James B.McEllistrim, Thomas.MacEntee, Seán.Maguire, Ben.Maguire, Conor Alexander.Moane, Edward.Moore, Séamus.Moylan, Seán.Murphy, Patrick Stephen.Murphy, Timothy Joseph.Norton, William.O'Briain, Donnchadh.O'Dowd, Patrick.O'Grady, Seán.O'Reilly, Matthew.Pattison, James P.Pearse, Margaret Mary.Rice, Edward.Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.Ryan, James.Ryan, Martin.Ryan, Robert.Sheridan, Michael.Smith, Patrick.Traynor, Oscar.Victory, James.Walsh, Richard.Ward, Francis C. |
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Little and Traynor.
Question declared lost.