Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Mar 1935

Vol. 55 No. 11

Pounds (Provision and Maintenance) Bill, 1935—Committee.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Section 2 reads:

Every local authority shall provide in the functional area of such authority such pounds as the county registrar shall, with the approval of the Minister, direct either generally or in any particular case, and every local authority shall maintain in accordance with this Act every pound provided by them under this Act.

It appears from the Bill that, under certain circumstances, the county registrar can serve a ukase on the local authority that they must either establish a pound or carry out such repairs as he may think necessary on the pound and levy the expenses for doing that on the county. I can see no valid reason why a local authority should be constrained to embark on an expenditure of this kind if the county registrar happens to think it necessary. It seems to me that if the Minister feels that the country is in such a condition that the pound accommodation must be widely increased, the Minister who is responsible for the Money Resolution should provide means of doing it. The Minister would not contend that it is action on the part of the local authorities that makes this multiplicity of pounds necessary. I have been living in this country for 30 years, and I have no recollection of any pound being used in the whole time I was living in the country, except, perhaps occasionally to confine a stray donkey or an abandoned goat. We are all perfectly well aware that the sudden emergency which has arisen in connection with the pound accommodation at present available is that practically every farmer is going to be introduced to that luxurious accommodation. It is not enough for the Minister to take steps which will bring the stock of every hard-working farmer into the pounds but he would add insult to injury and ask the people whose property he is going to drive into the pounds to provide, out of the rates levied off their own land, the wherewithal to build them. There are prudent limits to which any responsible man will go in exasperating the public, but really I think it is going beyond the beyonds if you not only persecute people but ask them to pay you for persecuting them. I suggest to the Minister that this section should either be dropped or that he should indicate his intention on the Report Stage of putting down an amendment to make any charge for repairing those pounds or establishing them a charge on the Central Fund or on the Supply Services. In doing that, I ask him to remember that it was not open to me to put down such an amendment, because, I think I am right in saying, that it would have been ruled out of order as imposing a charge upon the Exchequer.

It was stated on the Second Stage of the Bill—and this section goes really to the root of that—that the position under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1851, was that three justices of the peace formerly, and latterly a district justice, could requisition the county council to provide such pounds as were considered necessary. The sole purpose of this section is to regularise that position. There was a limit of £10 imposed under the 1851 Act which was altogether inadequate.

Deputy Dillon is entirely wrong in his assumption that the section is intended to deal with an abnormal number of seizures or anything like that. As was pointed out already, this Bill was drafted in 1928 when that position could not be said to exist, and it was drafted purely and simply to regularise and bring up to date what was regarded as an antiquated position. As the Deputy knows, £10 is absolutely inadequate now to maintain a pound in any place, and there are a number of counties where no pound exists. With regard to any abnormal position that may arise, under Section 9 (2) of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act, 1926, you can impound seized cattle anywhere. There is nothing revolutionary in this section, because as the law stood a district justice could requisition the local authority at any time. The only point is that the local authority were limited to an expenditure of £10, which the Deputy knows might be all right in 1851, but certainly would not be applicable to-day.

The county councils find themselves at this moment facing the making up of their estimates for next year. One after another the secretary reads out to the county council the amounts of money which the Minister for Local Government is withholding from them in respect of annuities which people have not been able to pay. In many cases the secretaries have to inform their councils that they do not know how much money they are getting, and find it impossible to discover from the Minister for Local Government what money they are going to get from grants which the Minister propagands to the country that he is going to pay. You have various counties pointing out the many ways in which actions of the present Government are increasing the expenses to them of the general administration and the running of their institutions. The Secretary of the North Tipperary County Council pointed out the other day that the coalcattle pact alone was going to cost North Tipperary £260 or £270 more in respect of coal. Even if the Bill is as harmless as the Minister says, it is an extraordinary thing that we were able to get on in this country with the pounds we had, and with the machinery we had until now. It is only when the local authorities are finding themselves in an extraordinarily difficult financial position that a Bill like this becomes urgent.

Why did you have it drafted in 1928?

Why did the Minister hold it up since 1932? Is there more pressure for pounds now than there was between 1929 and 1932?

None whatever.

Not much more?

None whatever.

None whatever?

None whatever, so far as the provisions of this Bill are concerned.

If the Minister is acting as innocently as he now pretends to the House why did we adjourn the Dáil for months last year; why did we meet for a day now and two days again, if this Bill was drafted six years ago and was ready to be stuck into a spare half-hour here? The Minister is introducing this Bill now when the financial position of local bodies is a very difficult one; when many of the counties controlled by his own partisans are writing up to tell him they cannot carry on next year, and indicating ways in which they should be relieved of certain financial burdens. But what the Minister does not deny and cannot deny is that he is handing over power to a certain person, who in many counties is the sheriff carrying out seizures for inability to pay rates or land annuities, to say: "I want a pound here, there and elsewhere." He is giving him power practically to set them up and send the bill to the county council if they are not set up. If the Bill is as innocent as the Minister says, then he has sufficient difficulties already without increasing his difficulties and the misunderstandings about himself and his policy throughout the country. He could afford to wait for this Bill for another year. In the meantime the local authorities manned by the people who are suffering under the present circumstances cannot but read his Bill as being what it is on the face of it—a handing over to the sheriff of power to require those pounds and send the bill to the local authorities.

Is there any meaning in sub-section (3)? Are county councils going to auction pounds? What is the sense of taking power to sell pounds? It seems positively ridiculous that anybody would go to auction a pound. What for? Who is going to buy it? A pound has already been provided. Why give authority to the county registrar to make a selection of pounds? If there is such a place as a pound, let it be repaired, but it is ridiculous to think that a new pound will be erected somewhere at the instigation of the county registrar, who will forthwith issue a certificate that the county council may dispose of the other pound. For what purpose? A suggestion of that kind is positively ridiculous. If a new pound is ordered by the county registrar the other is presumably useless. Whatever is invested in it has gone by the board. Nobody is going to buy it. Can anybody imagine what purpose it would be used for?

The Minister retaliated to Deputy Mulcahy by saying: "Why did you draft the Bill in 1928?" to which Deputy Mulcahy very aptly replied: "Why did you lock it in your bosom since 1932?" The answer to both questions is perfectly simple, because I can quite imagine that county registrars are persons who, in their own narrow ambit, are constantly pressing on the central Government to evolve legislation of this kind, and the Government, having in some spare moment drafted a Bill of this kind, says: "Pounds are not required at the present time; there is no considerable volume of seizures going on and there is no immediate prospect of them. We have knocked along with what we have since the Land League days, and there is no urgent necessity for pounds. We are not going to hold up the business of the legislature now to make provision for them." Now, the Minister produces the Bill, and everybody knows why. It is because he and his colleagues have created a situation in this country in which the back yard of every Civic Guard barracks in the country is being turned into a pound. As time goes on he knows perfectly well that if they pursue their present policy there will not be room in the back yards of the Civic Guard barracks for the cattle they will have to seize in order to raise the charges they are trying to levy on the farmers of this country, at the same time as they are making it impossible for the farmers to sell their live stock. They are perfectly well aware that, unless they trot out their "John Brown" and sell the cattle to him for one-fifth of the normal value, providing him with licences to ship them to the much despised British market and there sell them at a comfortable profit, they cannot get, from men who are unable to pay, public charges which those men are willing and anxious to pay if they had the means wherewith to pay them. It is as well that the Fianna Fáil Party should realise that the reason why the Minister has drawn this Bill from the pigeon-hole at the present time is largely because Fianna Fáil has stood in the country for a policy which is bringing ruin and bankruptcy on the greater part of the community. Those pounds are going to be made the scene of the ruin and the bankruptcy of the best elements in this country.

Ten per cent.

Deputy Moore always has a nice, interesting, relevant interjection to make.

How many pounds does he want in Wicklow?

As many as we can get.

The fact is, as every reasonable man in this country knows, that not 10 per cent. but 80 per cent. of the population—the entire agricultural community—is being reduced to a condition whereunder they will have to make the acquaintance of those pounds. Quite apart from the glaring injustice to the people, it is bad for the country as a whole, and in my opinion it is an intolerable abuse not only to beggar the people but to ask the people to pay out of their land for the rostrum upon which their bankruptcy is to be shown before the world.

All I want to say is this. Deputy Dillon may refer to Deputy Mulcahy's apt reply, but if we want to have any special legislation brought in we must see the necessity for it before we employ draftsmen and officials to have that particular measure drafted. It is only when the necessity arises that we do so. I would assume, at any rate, that any responsible Executive Council would ask their officials or their draftsmen to prepare such a measure. I do not suggest that when Deputy Mulcahy's Government in 1928 gave instructions to have this Bill drafted that there was any abnormal position in the country with regard to seizures of cattle. I do not suggest that for a moment; but I do suggest that the reason for giving instructions to prepare this legislation in 1928 is the same reason that exists now. I do suggest that it was necessary to have that measure brought up to date. To say that these pounds are required to deal with special seizures is moonshine. We have several places which were never regarded as pounds and which are not now regarded as pounds, but they have been used as pounds. We have set up in Cork and elsewhere places that were not pounds and we have turned them into pounds. Deputies know that position. Marsh's Yard in Cork was not a pound. The military barracks in Fermoy was not a pound. The powers are there and they were left there by the previous Government —by the legislation which the previous Government enacted.

And you want more?

No. The Deputy is trying to twist this into a political matter; that this is a measure which has been brought in absolutely to deal with the situation that he alleges is in the country. I am not suggesting that any abnormal position existed in the country when the Deputy's Government gave instructions to have this Bill drafted as it is there. Not one line has been changed.

The Minister did not follow our line soon enough.

Not one line has been changed, and we have had the Deputy making political speeches and raising the point in the Dáil that there was another purpose behind this Bill. If that is so, what was the purpose that his Government had behind them in giving instructions for the drafting of the Bill?

The Minister says that not one line has been changed. Not only has one line been changed in the measure but the whole fabric has been changed. When this Bill was drafted a pound meant a place where a seized animal might be brought or where the property of a person might be taken in order to realise it for the purpose of the recovery of a debt due by a citizen or for the purpose of the recovery of any judgment of the courts in the country. But a pound to-day means a place to which a farmer's cattle can be brought on the certificate of the Land Commission without any right vesting in the farmer whatever to go to the court, make his case and ask them to give him that protection that was long established for his behalf. That is, to put a stay on the execution of a judgment or to give him time to pay. But you have the case to-day in which anybody can have his property seized and brought to the pound and sold at bankrupt prices without any reference whatever to the man's capacity to pay the debt. The Government claims——

Impounding the Government's policy on land annuity payments does not make the matter relevant.

Well, I do not wish to push it further but I think I am entitled to meet the case when the Minister says that not one line of the Bill has been altered. My point is that the word "pounds" has altered in its purpose since the Bill was first drafted and we have rightly protested against the multiplication of pounds in this country—pounds that are to be used for selling farmers' cattle. Farmers had the right in 1928 when the Minister says this Bill was drafted to go into court and make a case as to their inability or capacity to pay. They had then the ordinary safeguards of the law provided for them. I doubt very much whether the local authorities or anybody else would have any objection to co-operate with the Government in the due administration of the law. But it is because these pounds are now to be used as part of a general system of bringing to the people a denial of their constitutional rights—that is, to avail of the courts in the ordinary way—that we consider a grave injustice is being done by making further demands on the ratepayers who are to be mulcted in order to pay for these pounds.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 27.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Derrig. Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Norton, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • 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.

Níl

  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Keating, John.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Vincent.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Section 3 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Here, again, the sheriff is given power to control, manage and incur expenses in connection with the upkeep and the maintenance of all the pounds he wants and to send the bill to the local authority. That is, again, putting power into the hands of a person who is in a most objectionable position at the present time to incur expenses for objectionable purposes and to send the bill to the local authority, which will have the money collected from the unfortunate farmers, bringing the whole vicious circle round again to have another crack at the farmers and further to deplete the money in their pockets. I should like to hear the Minister defend the proposal.

If the Deputy's Party had not introduced a Bill and passed it into law which amalgamated the positions of county registrar and sub-sheriff, when the position of sub-sheriff became vacant, there would be no question of the sheriff and the registrar being the one person in certain counties now, nor would the words "county registrar" mean "sheriff," at the same time. There is a number of counties still in which the two positions are separate and there is no suggestion in the Bill itself that the sub-sheriff should be the proper person. It is the county registrar.

So that the Minister's attitude is: "Yes, the sheriff who is carrying on this work will have pounds wherever he wants them; he will maintain them and control them and incur expenses in connection with them; he will send a bill to the local authorities which will, if they are able, get the money from the farmers; and if not, will go through another circle of sheriffs, farmers, cattle and pounds." But in doing that, he says: "You must not blame me for that; there were people here in 1929 who got this Bill drafted and we found it and, after all, what could we do when we found it?" In the meantime the people of the country have to pay up and the farmers have to suffer.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 28.

  • Aiken, Frank
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Dcherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Norton, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchads.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Vincent.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."

The Minister takes the precaution to arrange, under Section 5 that where the sheriff has reason to believe that the local body will not act to his whip, not only can he select his pound, but he can also select his man or men to mind and man it. I would like the Minister to say, if the situation is so normal and if the Bill is so innocent as he suggests it is, a few words on the necessity for such a provision.

I can only say that the Deputy's Government had certainly a good deal of foresight when they put all those provisions into that particular section when they were having it drafted. Apparently it was considered necessary then to have those provisions, and it is considered necessary now to have them.

So the Minister has come to the conclusion that the amendment of Article 2A of the Constitution was hardly worth having if the last Government did not leave them also this nice Bill to run in double harness with it against the farmers of the country?

The Deputy will have plenty of opportunities to talk this sort of nonsense on some of the private motions on the Paper.

And that is all the Minister has to say on this proposal?

Section 5 agreed?

Not if we can help it.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 32.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Norton, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • 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.

Níl

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Keating, John.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Vincent.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."

This section provides, as was pointed out in dealing with Section 5, that the person who may be appointed by the sheriff to look after the pound which he selects shall be paid certain fees and certain remuneration. The bill for this will be sent to the local authority.

We spoke, on the Second Stage, of the position with regard to the pound in Mullingar, where the pound has been kept inside the military barracks. The Minister will not say that the Westmeath County Council is not a county council after his own heart. Nevertheless, at the last meeting of the County Council the Chairman, Deputy Kennedy, said: "The rate position in County Westmeath is bad because of the withholding of the Agricultural Grant and the County Council have decided that they will not give an increased rate. Before 12 months are out, if there is not a change in the outlook, the County Council will not be able to maintain the county services." I should like to ask the Minister how many pounds will be required in Deputy Kennedy's constituency. I should also like to hear what Deputy Kennedy has to say with regard to the Minister's proposal to allow the sheriff in Westmeath to select his pounds and the staff of men to man them and send the bill to the County Council, whose financial plight Deputy Kennedy paints so seriously.

In the county which the Deputy quotes we had an example of another person with £2,000 in bank or otherwise who would not pay. People like that will have to be provided for with regard to pounds. If there is a campaign such as that in that county, whether the county council like it or not, it has to be dealt with. Whether pounds will be necessary or not to solve that situation I do not know. Under the powers we have at present we are in a position to deal with any situation like that quite effectively. We have the military barracks there. If there is any delay in collecting the annuities that delay can be remedied by the Departments concerned, who can have the matter speeded up.

Will the Minister say how many pounds were required for the case he refers to? Is he very innocently telling the House that he does not think he will want any more in Westmeath, but that nevertheless he is taking these powers?

The Attorney-General

If the people with £2,000 in the bank will not pay, he will probably want more.

Tell us how many more you will want in Westmeath and what the cost will be to the county council.

If a man has £2,000 in the bank, the Attorney-General must realise that ways and means are open to him of getting whatever is due to the State without putting the county council to the expense of keeping a place like a pound to put cattle in. If there are such cases, it would be much better in all the circumstances that such proceedings should be taken rather than to bring in a Bill here for this purpose. If no better case exists than that, it falls to the ground at once.

The Attorney-General

Deputy Cosgrave is very innocent and does not suggest any way in which they could be more effectively dealt with than the way they were dealt with. The Deputy probably knows the case I refer to, which is an outstanding example of the difficulties with which the Administration has to deal.

I do not know.

The Attorney-General

Then I shall illuminate him and tell him a few of the facts. Probably Deputy Mulcahy does. He has probably a cutting about it.

Unfortunately I have not.

The Attorney-General

Apparently the publicity department of his Party did not furnish him with the particular cutting.

I would be glad if the Minister or the Attorney-General would give us more information as to what they do intend when they get these powers, and what the cost to the local authorities will be.

The Attorney-General

We had recently in Mullingar a case in which an action was taken against the sheriff by a person for some alleged wrongful action of his in connection with the sale of cattle. It was dressed up as a first-class cause with senior counsel engaged and a full day's trial before a jury of County Westmeath farmers. This gentleman claimed damages for alleged wrongful action on the part of the sheriff. It turned out in the course of the evidence that this man owed a certain small sum for annuities—I think about £14. He refused to pay and his cattle were seized. He claimed that there was not an open sale, and when he came into court to give evidence he admitted in cross-examination that he had, I think, £250 on current account in the bank and £2,000 invested in securities. Notwithstanding that, he felt that he should join in the campaign which was encouraged by certain persons against the payment of land annuities. But what I said to Deputy Mulcahy and what Deputy Cosgrave took me up on was, that if the Administration find it necessary to seize the cattle of people who are in a position of that kind it is necessary to have very strong provisions to enable pounds to be provided. Such a state of things should not exist and would not exist if Deputies opposite and those responsible for encouraging gentlemen of that type acted in what I should imagine is the normal way in which a constitutional Opposition should act.

Deputy Cosgrave suggests that if a man has money in a bank and has securities it ought not to be necessary to rely upon this particular type of machinery to realise a debt of £14. He possibly does not know of the difficulties of dealing with a man who has money in stocks and shares or on deposit in the bank unless you can take the course of making him a bankrupt and in that way enforcing your claim against him. One would have thought that the ordinary procedure which is available to debtors to recover a debt by putting the decree in the hands of the sheriff would be the normal way in which legal debts are recovered. That is the method of procedure which any Deputy who has responsibility for seeing that the laws are allowed to function would welcome. It is the easiest way in the long run and it is the cheapest. It is recognised by all persons who know anything about the difficulties that can be created in the recovery of debts that it is the particular type of machinery which should not be put out of gear. It is the machinery which Deputies opposite for the last couple of years have determined to put out of gear and which their opposition here is directed further to bring into discredit.

It is all very well to talk about conditions in the country, to enlarge upon the difficulties of the farmer, and to have a full-dress debate here upon a Bill which, as the Minister pointed out, was actually drafted by themselves. Of course, the political purpose behind it is quite clear. It is quite observable and quite understandable by us here. We may smile at it, but, at the same time, I think Deputies ought to realise that the attitude adopted towards this Bill and the proceedings here are intended for wider consumption. While Deputies may say that they are not encouraging people not to pay land annuities, and not encouraging people to obstruct the enforcement of court orders or warrants, I suggest to Deputies that that is not at all in keeping with the attitude which they have taken on this Bill, both on the Second Stage and on this Stage.

The example I have given is a perfect example of how an atmosphere can be created in which people who are well able to pay will not do so. The man in this particular instance did not even allege inability to pay. He merely said that he thought because everybody else was refusing to pay he also should refuse. If that does not bring a blush of shame to the Deputies opposite, and make them realise how dishonest this particular campaign is, nothing else will. I think the discussion on the Committee Stage of this Bill is not intended to be helpful. It is not intended to improve this Bill. It is merely intended to further increase the ardour of those who are prepared to obstruct the sheriff in doing his work.

The Attorney-General has allowed himself to use just a few terms which appal me, and I am not easily appalled.

The Attorney-General

You are not easily appalled.

"If" said the Attorney-General, "we were in normal times...." I wonder what exactly he meant by that?

The Attorney-General

When the Opposition behaved normally.

It is certainly open to a great many interpretations. That is, perhaps, the most amusing of all the interpretations which could be placed upon it. The Deputy has great experience of the courts. He mentioned the word "honesty." I presume that according to that interpretation one of the two parties going into court is dishonest. It is a very loose method of expression, and I do not believe the Attorney-General intended it. There is a party to this transaction, which is the State. It lays down its own regulations. It makes its own laws. It has gone even a step further than that. It has told the courts: "We will have nothing to do with you at all." It says to one man: "You have got to pay £x for land annuities," to another, "You have got to pay £x 1s.," and so on, without ever entering into any consideration as to whether or not the man is able to pay. For years that Party—the Attorney-General was not a brilliant light in it at the time I am dealing with—complained that the farming community was in a bad situation, and could not possibly pay its way. In fact, I read here the other night a speech from the leader of that Party, in which he said that one of the heaviest of the outgoings of the farmer in the way of overhead charges was his rates.

The Deputy seems to be under the impression that the House is discussing an item of Private Deputies' business.

I am not, Sir. I am trying to elucidate what the Attorney-General means when he says "if we were in normal times." It is the business of a Government to keep us in normal times. It so happens that people were allowed to believe they were in bad times four years ago. That man with his £2,000 in bank believes that story. I expect he is fully convinced of it. The situation created by that sort of an opposition is that that type of man is now taking his stand with his brethren who are not in a position to pay. Assuming for the moment that he is a dishonest man, is that the reason he should be robbed? And he was robbed.

The Attorney-General

The jury found against him. I forgot to add that.

I know. I quite understand all about that, but the facts of the case, notwithstanding, are that the man was robbed. How was he robbed? His cattle were put up for sale, and a bid would not be taken. The man was told he was late. It is no justification for the Administration to say "Because he is a dishonest man, we will make him pay." You have no right to do it. You have to be just. In this particular case you were not just. Even though he had £2,000 in bank—I do not know his name or anything about him other than that he was a farmer—the Administration had no right to precipitate that situation. If they wanted to do their business properly they should have gone to the courts and got a decree against him. The Attorney-General must be well aware that although this Bill was on the stocks—we were incorrectly told by a Minister here some time ago that it was drawn up by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney—it was never introduced. It never passed the Executive Council. If it had, it would have been introduced. That was to deal with a situation which required a just administrative amendment; this is a situation in which we are to have innumerable pounds. If the Attorney-General realised how much the fact that they cannot sell their cattle means to the people who are called upon by the sheriffs to pay their annuities he would have an entirely different view-point. It so happens that the Ministry has not been hit, and the back benchers of that Party can get out of their troubles through their influence with Ministers, but there are cases of people who have been very hard-hit, and the multiplication of pounds is not going to ease the situation for them.

I want to make only one or two observations arising out of the point made by the Attorney-General in connection with the Mullingar case. I happened to have some thing to do with the Mullingar case, and I know all about it up to a certain point. I do not propose to discuss the merits or demerits of the case, or its result or the reasons for its result. Deputy Cosgrave pointed out originally in his opening remarks that it would have been far better for the Administration to have sought to attach that sum of £2,000, which the plaintiff in that action is supposed to have had in bank, rather than to have seized his cattle and sold them at an under value, as they were admitted during the course of the evidence at that trial to have been sold.

The Attorney-General states in answer to that observation by Deputy Cosgrave that this procedure of seizure by the sheriff is the normal method and the proper method employed in connection with the recovery of debts generally, including the recovery of debts due to the State or to a Department of State. That may be so if the method adopted in this case and other similar cases was the normal method. It was not the normal method and because it was not the normal method the Administration were unable to discover or did not discover that this £2,000 was in the bank. If the normal method had been adopted—the normal method being to recover this sum of £15, or whatever was due to the Land Commission, by an action—the plaintiff in this Mullingar action, this defaulting annuitant, could have been brought before a District Court under the Enforcement of Court Orders Act for examination as to his means. Under that Act, he would have had to lodge in court a statement of his assets, and in the course of the lodgment of that statement of assets it would have transpired that this £2,000 was there. By adopting the machinery provided under the Land Act of 1933, the Administration were unable to discover or did not discover the existence of this fund which was available, and out of which their debt could have been paid. What they did was to use the punitive machinery under the Land Act of 1933 against the man, not for the purpose of getting payment of their debt, but for the purpose of punishing the defaulting annuitant for not having paid his debt.

I suggest that that is a matter which is a proper cause for complaint. Whether this opposition is normal or abnormal we are entitled to draw attention to the fact that the procedure under the Act of 1933 is not being used merely for the purpose of recovering annuities from defaulting annuitants but for the purpose of punishing annuitants who did not pay, irrespective of whether they can pay or not. That is what happened in the Mullingar case, and what was the cause of complaint in that case was that if the Administration are playing a certain game, which they are entitled to play according to the law as it stands at the moment, they ought to play the game according to the rules. In that particular case they did not play the game according to the rules.

The Attorney-General

The jury found they did.

Whatever the jury found, it was admitted in the course of the evidence put forward for the defendant that they did not play the game according to the rules.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 28.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Keely, Séamus T.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Keating, John.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Rice, Vincent.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."

On Section 7, having disposed of Westmeath where the Attorney-General says there is a terrible conspiracy going on, let us turn to the county where we have from the Fianna Fáil T.D., Deputy Smith, certain testimony. Let us turn to Cavan where at a recent meeting of the county council, Mr. O'Donnell said that the position there was such that the farmers were not able to pay and Deputy Smith who was present said that he agreed that in Cavan there was no such thing as any organised attempt against the payments of annuities.

Arguments in relation to the method of collection of annuities are not relevant to this section.

Here we have the Ministry determined to put this new machinery, which the Attorney-General, in spite of the Minister's protestations, admits is somewhat better machinery, into operation against the farmers and the Party have right-left-right-lefted through the Division Lobbies in a determined march against the farmers. If Deputy Smith is going to take part in this march against the farmers, I should like him to try to help us, in a way in which neither the Minister nor the Attorney-General has helped us, and tell us what expense is going to come to the Cavan County Council as a result of the provisions of Section 7 and what the Cavan County Council are going to do to meet it.

Section 7 provides that when the sheriff has secured his necessary pounds, he shall have power to carry out such repairs and other work as may be necessary and when the local authority fails or neglects to provide a sufficient supply of any substance or thing required for the due and proper use of any pound, the county registrar may supply them and the sheriff shall then have power to proceed against the local authority for the recovery of the amount so spent by him as a civil debt. The Cavan County Council, for instance, has been told that some £12,000 odd are to be taken from them this year as a result of persons not being able to pay their annuities.

The Attorney-General

On a point of order, what has this got to do with the repair of pounds?

It has got to do with the capacity of the local authorities to pay the burden——

Let us get this matter clear. I once heard a song called "The Thirty-Two Counties." It is a lengthy ballad. It would be possible on the lines on which the Deputy is proceeding to go into the financial position of every county council in the State to discuss the amount of grants withheld, all of which would be absolutely irrelevant.

I raised on the last section the name of one county council——

In fact, three-fourths of the debate on the last section, on both sides of the House, was out of order.

——and I mention the Cavan County Council now as a county council. At any rate, the sheriff is being given power to send his bill, under Section 7, to local bodies who, although it can be said that there is no movement to interfere with the collection of public moneys in these areas, are definitely in difficulties as a result of their own inability to collect their rates, and as a result of the Land Commission's inability to collect land annuities. I ask the Fianna Fáil troops on the far side to give us some idea of what this Bill is going to cost the county councils and some idea as to how it is going to be used. They have given us no idea up to the present, and I, for my part, am determined that if the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party are marching against the farmers with this new machinery, the farmers will know that they are coming and will hear their right-left-right-left up the Division Lobbies and will see them from the heights of the Division Lobbies.

There are Deputies on the Fianna Fáil Benches who have sat down in every part of this country at the discussions of county councils during the last three weeks. I wonder why they are so dumb if this instrument is the innocent instrument the Minister for Justice tells us it is.

Not alone will Deputies on these benches advocate the provision of pounds——

But you will make the farmers pay for them.

——for the different counties, to be provided out of local rates, but we will go down to our local bodies —and Deputy Mulcahy need not give himself any trouble in endeavouring to expose us before the farming community—and before the farmers of our own counties and we are prepared to see that they will provide the necessary funds to put up the pounds which, in the opinion of the Department of Justice, or whatever Department is handling the matter, are necessary. Is that clear?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Has Deputy Smith heard members of his own county council saying that ratepayers have come with their warrants in their hands anxious to pay and asking to be provided with some work on the roads so that they can pay their demands for rates?

The Attorney-General

On a point of order, is this relevant?

No, it is not and that has already been ruled.

That is the attitude of the Fianna Fáil troops as clearly as the Deputy could want it.

I doubt if Deputy Smith or other Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party are as clear spoken as that when they are down the country——

Read the extract you have just quoted from.

——and I, at any rate, am determined, in so far as their actions or their statements here can lead the country, that they will be clear spoken and that the farmers will know what is coming to them.

The Deputy need not have the slightest worry.

I have been elected to the Dáil as a farmer and, as a farmer, I should like to make a few remarks. The position into which the present Government has launched the farming community to-day is very hard and very unjust. As a matter of fact, the farmers always paid their way and will pay their way, but what purpose these pounds are required for I cannot see. Owing to the administration of the present Government we have lost our markets for our cattle——

Let us be clear on what we are discussing. There is a marginal note to this section which will clearly indicate to any Deputy what we are discussing. It says "Repair of pounds on default of local authority", that is, where a local authority defaults in regard to the repair of a pound and what provision will be made for that repair.

I agree. We are discussing whether our cattle are to go into the pounds.

No, we are not doing that.

Are they for the farmers themselves or for the cattle? It looks as if they are for the farmers because so far as I can see, the Government look on the farmer as a nuisance. He is seemingly a nuisance in this country and the opinion amongst the Fianna Fáil Deputies seems to be that the sooner he is wiped out the better. It is all very well for that Minister to smile but he must remember that it is out of agriculture that everything comes and the farmer at present is not to be laughed at in this House or outside it. Under Section 7, if a local authority does not repair the local pound or put it into proper order, the registrar in this county can come in and do it for the local authority and the local authority will have to pay whatever expenses he incurs. In our county this year, £18,000 or £19,000 are being withheld, representing 1s. 6d. or 1s. 8d. in the £. I may be going out of order but I will not go very far. I will not go 100 yards. It may be that our rates next year are going to be advanced by 1s. 6d. and I think that if the present Government had any regard for the farmer, they would have left this matter of pounds for a later day. They might have left it to their next session in office. I should like every member in this House to bear in mind that it is out of agriculture that everything has to come, and with the wiping out of agriculture which, as far as I can see, is the aim, this Government and everybody else—and I say it without fear of contradiction—will go bang. When that day comes, that will be the position and, so far as I can see, that day is not very distant now.

And all this is irrelevant. I have tried to indicate to the Deputy what is relevant on this section. Certain provisions are set out in the section with reference to the repair of pounds on the default of local authorities. The Deputy should tell us why such provisions should or should not be put into effect.

The fact of the matter is that the county councils are not able to collect the local rates at the present time, and it will be much more difficult for them when they have additional rates to collect arising out of the suggested provisions in this Bill. The country people are asked in this measure to erect and maintain a sort of prison for themselves, to construct and maintain places for impounding their stock. It is very hard on any farmer who has been up to this just making a living in the country to carry on his affairs when his financial responsibilities are daily increasing. The attitude adopted by this Government is calculated to wipe out the farmers.

I am anxious to know from the Minister and the Attorney-General the number of pounds likely to be maintained under this section. Now that we have to build and maintain pounds, I would like to know the number we are to be called upon to maintain in Longford and Westmeath. At the present moment, and so far as we can see for some time to come, the ratepaying community are and will be in a very difficult position. The Attorney-General told us of a case in Westmeath where a farmer has £2,000. He is probably one of the lucky ones. I know scores of farmers in Westmeath who are unable to pay rates or rents, and there is no conspiracy amongst them, because they are prominent supporters of the present Administration. I happen to know one, a relative of mine, who resides with his father, mother, his wife and seven children. The sheriffs arrived at his place and seized his cattle. I paid the rent for him, without going to Mullingar. I paid the rates for him since.

There are scores of people in the same position as he is in that district in Westmeath, and yet you now call upon those people to pay an additional rate for the maintenance of these pounds. Is that fair or equitable? Do you not think that the times are abnormal? You said that in normal times things ought to be so and so. In normal times this man, with 30 or 40 acres of land, would be fairly well off, but as a result of the policy adopted by this Administration he is now unable to pay his rent and rates. If he can feed and clothe his dependants, he is not doing badly. Yet the officers of the State seize his cattle, and now you are proposing to add to his liabilities. You want to add to the rates the cost of maintenance of this instrument of torture. Is it fair?

The House has already decided that the expenses incurred by the county registrar in connection with the control and management of every pound shall be defrayed by the local authority. You have already decided that and the Deputy is going back on it.

I want to know what sum the local authority is likely to be called upon to pay. This section is not yet passed and I suggest that the Minister should eliminate it.

The section I have referred to is the section passed by the House with regard to the control, etc., of pounds.

I admit we have done that, but I respectfully suggest it is still within the competence of the Minister to put this charge on the Central Fund if he wishes to do so. Where a council is unable to meet the demand the registrar, instead of carrying out the repairs at the expense of the council and making the proposed declaration to the Minister for Finance, could make a declaration to the Minister to the effect that the council was unable to defray the expenses and suggest that the Minister should meet them out of the Central Fund. That is my contention. It is admitted that there are councils financially embarrassed and, even though law-abiding, something like Deputy Smith's council, and anxious and willing to carry out the necessary repairs, they might find themselves unable to do so. In that case the registrar might issue a certificate indicating that in his opinion the council was not financially strong enough to carry out the repairs and the Minister should carry them out, drawing the expenses from the Central Fund.

I think this section is definitely one of the worst sections in the Bill. It gives tremendous authority to the registrar and throws the obligation on the local body of erecting these pounds and paying for their upkeep. The same applies to the appointment of pound keepers. I would like the Minister, or those Fianna Fáil Deputies who are supporting the Bill so strongly, to justify the principle of making one authority responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of pounds and another authority responsible for making the appointments. This whole principle aims at the destruction of local government and that is one of the most serious aspects of this measure. This Bill is really a step in the direction of the destruction of local government. Once a popularly elected body is deprived of the right to control the rates which it collects, it is time for it to get out. How can Deputy Smith justify the suggestion that the local body is there only to squeeze money out of ratepayers and other parties are responsible for the spending of that money? That is a procedure that no elected representative in any local body in Ireland can defend. When a person is elected to a local body he should defend the rights of that body. I do not think that the Minister should lightly accept the principle set out in the Bill. I hope the House will vote this section out of the Bill.

It seems an extraordinary section to put in, giving the registrar power to repair the pounds and making local authorities bear the expenses. The urgent use now for the pound is to impound seized cattle and seized stock from people who, in terms of goods, are well able and willing to pay, but who, in terms of cash, are unable to pay because the Government has produced such conditions that the goods cannot be converted into cash. I heard of a classical example recently of where about £200 worth of stuff was seized in Donegal to cover a debt of £3, but the man could not convert the goods into money because of the conditions imposed by the Government. Speaking for the local authority that would be called upon to provide pounds in the County of Dublin and, speaking as the chairman of the local authority, I know what we are confronted with. I know of men who have their lands fully stocked who cannot pay the rates because they cannot convert their stock into money.

Here, the registrar has the power to fix up a pound if the local authority does not do it and charge the local authority for fixing up that pound— to impound cattle seized on foot of a debt that the owner is able and willing to pay, and for which he has sufficient stock to pay, were it not that the conditions, for which the Government is responsible, do not enable that man to turn those goods into money. Where will it all end? How will the local authority get the money to pay the bill when the registrar puts it up to them?

Only this morning, the owner of one of the best draught stallions in Ireland called to me to know what was to be done. He said, in effect: "I have as much stock as ever I had; I have as much tillage as ever I had. Here are 50 mare nominations waiting for my horse, but I must pay my rates up to the 31st of March, and I have not got the money." Now, we, in County Dublin, will get an order from the registrar, and we are supposed, when this becomes law, to put up pounds. For what? Is it to put this man's stallion into? Is it to put his sows into? Is it to put his live stock into— the live stock that he has worn his feet off driving into the Dublin market hoping to turn them into any sort of money? It is very easy for Ministers, sitting in easy chairs that they can swing around on, to give an idea of a Bill to the draftsman and tell him to draft the Bill, but will they come down to realities? What answer can I give this hard-working farmer? I said that I would see what could be done. I will see him to-morrow. What answer will I give him? Will I give him the answer that to-day we, who are drawing £1 a day from the State, and Ministers who are drawing £1,200 or £1,300 a year from the State, spent this day passing legislation to tax that man to build a pound into which to put his stallion? Is not that the position? That is the only answer I have to give him, and that is the fact, and I am getting £1 a day for it. The Minister is getting £3 or £4 or £5 a day, and other Deputies are getting £1 a day simply for squeezing the life-blood out of the people.

As I have already told other Deputies, we cannot travel the whole length of the economic war and such matters on this section. The Deputy knows what this section provides for. It provides for the repair of pounds in a certain way if the local authority defaults on such repair. Nothing else is relevant on this section but that.

But, Sir, I suggest that it is like a man shooting himself and being charged for the bullet that shoots him. Where is the money to come from to repair the pound? We will have to fill the pounds, because people are not able to turn their stock into money to pay our demands. Because we cannot get our demands, we put the stock into the pound, and John Brown will buy the stock by the dozen. Deputy Victory can get those gentlemen who are hawking the seized cattle —gentlemen from North Longford, I am sorry to say—down to Donegal and give them away.

I know nothing about it.

Well, the Deputy voted for it and he is going to vote for it now also. Mind you, Deputy Victory, there are many millionaires in Longford now.

And in Dublin, too.

I am glad if the Deputy is a millionaire, but I never took him to be one. There is absolutely no sense or reason in this section. The Minister may think that all this is necessary and that those pounds do need repair, but I should like to call his attention to a thing that happened a few weeks ago. A few weeks ago the Guards seized a dozen milch cows out in the Rathcoole area. They put the cows into a pound with a foot and a half of muck in it. One would not put a rat into such a place, and some of these were freshly-calved cows. We, in the Dublin County Council, sent our veterinary officer for the county there. I am sorry that I have not his report with me, but I shall send it to the Minister if it would be any use to him. I may tell the Minister that, as a result of that report, we are seriously considering prosecuting the Guards for cruelty to animals.

That is entirely irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

At any rate, Sir, if the Minister thinks that we should have pounds into which to put and house the cattle that his Administration has rendered valueless, and if, by our orders from the local authorities, we have to seize the cattle because we cannot get money in lieu of the cattle, how are we going to get money for the building of the pounds? I suggest to the Minister that if he thinks there is something wrong in the local administration and that he will put it right by the provision of pounds, the central authority should provide the pounds. I am greatly afraid that, even if this is passed in its present form, it will not work out as automatically as it would appear to work out. I am quite satisfied that, so far as County Dublin is concerned, we have all the pounds there that will be required to be constructed, repaired or maintained, in our time of office at any rate.

I can assure Deputy Belton that there will be no necessity to construct pounds in his area. Deputy MacEoin spoke of the responsibility of the local authorities. I should like to say that when the Minister for Industry and Commerce was coming into this House to take charge of the Bill on its Second Reading I informed him that it was purely a routine or formal measure. Of course, I am well aware of the ingenuity of some people in trying to inject politics into the simplest matter in this House. I have read the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill and I have been listening here to all this nonsense about the economic difficulty and the economic war, and that these pounds are being provided to deal with that. I assure Deputies that while my Department is responsible for the collection of land annuities, that is, so far as enforcing the decrees is concerned, I do not want any additional pounds. The previous Government gave us plenty of powers to seize cattle and put them anywhere, to sell them anywhere, and not bother about pounds.

And you are doing it. You seized 28 cattle yesterday in Granard for a debt of £34 and sold them for £34.

That is not the position.

That is the machinery you are working.

Section 9 (2) of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act passed in 1926 states: "All goods, animals and other chattels taken in execution by an under-sheriff under any execution order may, pending the sale thereof, be impounded, stored and kept by the under-sheriff in such place or places as he shall think fit, and notwithstanding that such place or places is or are not appointed or authorised by law to be used as pounds." Not only that, but sub-section (3) gives power to take stock anywhere and sell them anywhere.

Do you not think that this was an inopportune time to bring in a Bill like this?

That is the Act under which we are operating at present. Marsh's yard was not a pound; the military barracks in Mullingar are not a pound. We have taken over premises on the borders of Carlow and Kilkenny which are also being used. We have not to come to this House for any authority for it. This Bill was referred to by Deputy Cosgrave, who said that in their time they regarded it as administrative mending. If I for one moment thought it was going to be twisted into all this propaganda, away from the administrative mending it was intended to be, I could have done without the Bill, as I do not want it. I have plenty of powers so far as the seizure of cattle or anything else is concerned. The position is that when instructions were given at first to have the Bill drafted, representations were made that £10 was not sufficient to maintain pounds in certain counties. There are several counties which have no pounds. No matter what people may say, sometimes cattle wander off farms, and if the owners are not known the practice is to put them into pounds. It is all political propaganda to suggest that this Bill is required for the purpose of meeting the annuities situation which may or may not exist in the country. We have ample powers at present. We can seize cattle in Cork and sell them in Dublin. We can seize them anywhere we like, and we can take over premises anywhere and put cattle into them. The previous Government gave us these powers. When the Bill was about to be introduced by the previous Government it was intended, as Deputy Cosgrave said, for administrative mending. It is also intended by this Government for administrative mending.

Will the Minister say under what section of that Act he quoted 28 cattle can be seized and put into a pound for a debt of £34?

There is power to put the cattle into any place if they are seized.

To seize 28 cattle for a debt of £34?

The Deputy probably remembers or, if he does not, he can put down a question about it, when hundreds of cattle were taken over by his Administration in 1923 and sent by rail from various parts of the country and sold for an average of 15/- or 16/-.

Were cattle ever sold for 5/-?

The Minister says he has power to impound cattle anywhere and take over premises for that purpose. I should like to ask if the Department which sells such cattle——

That has nothing to do with the repair or provision of pounds.

The Minister's statement that cattle were seized and sold for 15/- or 16/- ten years ago is an absolute fabrication.

What I should have said was that the return to the person to whom the money was to be paid was 15/- or 16/-.

The original statement was an absolute fabrication. I suggest that the other is also.

It is not. The return to the people whose cattle were seized in that way was 15/- or 16/- and I can show the Deputy several examples.

I should like the Minister to produce them.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 36.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallagh, Seán T.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • 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.

Níl

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Vincent.
Tellers:—Ta: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."

This section gives power to the Minister to make regulations for the control of the pounds erected at the expense of the local bodies. It enables the Minister to fix the fees to be paid to the pound-keepers appointed, perhaps, by the sheriff on suitable occasions, and it imposes a penalty of £20 or, at the discretion of the court, six months' imprisonment, or both, on any person who contravenes any of the regulations made by the Minister under this section as regards the management and regulation of pounds and the powers, duties or functions of the pound-keepers. Are we to understand from the Minister, who says this is a harmless Bill, that Section 8 is the real thing which he is looking for— that he wanted power to frame regulations with regard to these pounds, and that he wanted power to inflict a punishment of £20 or six months' imprisonment on anybody who contravened any of these regulations?

We thought it was a proper control to have, as was thought by the Deputy himself some time ago.

The Minister asks for extraordinary powers in this section. The Minister is really usurping the functions of the local bodies. He is asking for powers to make all the regulations in connection with these pounds. That should not be a matter for the Minister but for the local bodies, who should have the appointment of pound-keepers and should fix their fees and all that sort of thing. It is an old saying and one that is recognised as a true one that those who call the tune should pay the piper. The Minister in this case calls for the tune and makes the local bodies pay the piper. That is a very wrong principle in any section and I think that power should not be given to the Minister. If the local bodies are competent bodies they should be fit to discharge the duties imposed on them, and surely they are fit to administer such a matter as the pounds and responsible enough to appoint pound-keepers. I do not see why the Minister should get this power from the House and I feel very strongly on this point. While the local bodies are retained in this country they should have the spending of the money. If they are bound to collect that money from the ratepayers whom they represent then they should have the expenditure of the money. I strongly oppose this section.

Deputy McGovern has covered the ground I had intended to go over. Now that the local authorities have built the pounds and have to maintain the pounds which, I might say, are simply places in which to impound old wandering asses——

I was just pointing out that that is what the Minister has told us pounds are for. He told us that this is a mere formal matter, that these were pounds to be built and maintained in which to hold wandering animals. The Minister said that no matter how good a man was as a farmer it would be found that his cattle will sometimes wander. In the old days the R.I.C. took great pleasure in driving the neighbours' asses to the pound and now the Minister tells us again that this is a mere formal measure. That being the case and, seeing that the local authority has to build and maintain the pounds. I do not see why the Minister should reserve to himself the right.

"to make regulations for the general management and regulation of pounds; the powers, duties and functions of pound-keepers, and the fees to be paid to pound-keepers and the persons by whom such fees are to be paid."

The local authority, having built the pound and kept it in repair and all that sort of thing, should be in a position to decide the fees that are to be paid by the persons whose animals are impounded. The Minister may have elaborate ideas about these matters. I know at the moment cases where cattle are being purchased out of pounds. I know that as much as 4/- a day has been charged as poundage on each animal. That is an exorbitant charge. Even if the pound were full of clover and were a place where the best of everything was given to the stock it should not cost anything like 4/- a day. Cattle could be kept in the City of Dublin in one of the most expensive places at that rate. The Minister asks what is to be done with the fees and the disposal of such fees. Again I contend that the local authority, responsible as it is for all the expenditure, should be allowed to say what they are to do with the money. The Minister should not have anything to say on that question. I will say that the sale, disposal or destruction of the animals confined in the pound could be a matter for regulation by the Gárda authorities. However, it is immaterial as to whether it is the Gárda authorities or the Minister who regulates them. I think, however, that this section should not stand and that the Minister should alter it to read that the local council "may, by order, make such regulations for all or any of the following matters." I think the House should not pass this section.

The Statute law of this State provides that a sheriff's sale must be held in public. The Attorney-General has demonstrated during the last few months that his conception of a public sale and the conception by the vast majority of the people of this country are two very different things. The Attorney-General's conception of a public sale is to bring in a few down-at-heel hangers-on of the Government, sell cattle to them under anonymous names for a tithe of their value; then furnish them with licences and get the cattle out of the country to the despised and detested British market at the earliest opportunity.

The Attorney-General

Surely that has nothing to do with these sales.

That is not the view that obtained in this country about these sales. I do not blame the Attorney-General for he is over-ridden as he frequently seems to be by the Executive Council in these matters. I think the Attorney-General has been made the instrument of defending some extraordinary proceedings in this country. I am not surprised that in this case they did not allow him to act on his own judgment.

The Attorney-General

What case? I do not remember any case having been brought against me for not having a sale in public except the one in Mullingar.

Not yet. We have tumbled the Attorney - General in so many encounters that we find it hard to find time for them all. The Attorney-General, however, may rest assured that we will take up these matters with him later. What I am afraid of is that Section 8 of this Bill may interfere with the success of that project. Section 8 (1) (a) provides that the Minister may by order make regulations for the general management and regulation of pounds. Would that give him power to make such regulations as would interfere with the provision that sheriffs' sales must be held in public? Would he be entitled under that section to say that not more than 20 people would be entitled to attend a sale held in a pound? If he had that power, would the courts interpret it as power adequate to amend the provisions of legislation of this House? If this Bill purports to give the Minister for Justice the right to amend the existing Statute law by order, then I do not think that that section ought to pass in its present form. I need hardly say that that is a legal matter on which I do not presume to give any information. But I think the House is entitled to look for guidance to the Attorney-General in that matter.

The Attorney-General

Like most of the discussion, I do not think this a genuine seeking for knowledge on the part of Deputy Dillon, but that it is his contribution to the publicity campaign which is engineered on this Bill. The Deputy opened his speech by referring in some way to a practice for which, he said, I am either directly or indirectly responsible for rendering ineffective the provisions of the law as regards the holding of sales in public. I think it is hardly necessary to tell Deputy Dillon that the sheriffs are the persons responsible for the conduct of sales and that the sheriff is the judge as to the method by which the sale is to be carried out. The sheriff is bound to have regard to the law. I have no recollection of ever having been consulted by any sheriff as to what the meaning of holding a sale in public is or how far he was entitled to regulate admittance of persons to the sale yard. But Deputy Dillon must have at his disposal a number of legal advisers who would be willing to advise him if there was any possible cause of action against the sheriff. It is against the sheriff that an action would lie and if, as he says, there has been an abuse of the provisions of the law which demands that sales shall be held in public, it was open to any person who felt aggrieved in that regard to bring an action against the sheriff for his breach of the law.

The public know and appreciate quite well how much genuine concern for obedience to the law is behind this particular speech of Deputy Dillon's and the speeches in general which have been delivered from the opposite benches. The Deputy knows quite well that every effort has been resorted to —I am glad to say without success, except in a few instances—to render sheriffs' sales abortive, and, under the guise of claiming the rights for certain people which the law is supposed to confer on them as members of the public, of attending there, efforts were made which it took very carefully considered action to defeat, to prevent sales being held at all.

Who considered the action?

The Attorney-General

It is difficult to have patience with the line of criticism which has been adopted in this and in other discussions about this matter. Is there any person in this country, not to speak of in this House, who is not very well aware that a campaign to render sheriffs' sales abortive, with elaborate organisation before and at the sales, has been conducted in this country for the last couple of years and that sheriffs and Guards, in an attempt to allow sales to be carried out, have to restrict the admission of persons to pounds and so on, it was only done in order to defeat the efforts which were being made to render the whole machinery of the law ineffective? If the Deputy has any grievance which the persons he referred to were not ashamed to take into court, it was quite open to him, whether he thought the Attorney-General's advice was behind it or not, to invoke the aid of the court. We have heard during this discussion references to a case in Mullingar where the aid of the court was sought, because it was said the sheriff had done something which was against the law and the case was paraded before a jury of farmers in County Westmeath and thrown out with contumely.

It was demonstrated that the man was unjustly dealt with and that he was robbed of money.

The Attorney-General

It is a very sad state of affairs, if it is true, that a man who was unjustly dealt with was unable to obtain redress from a jury selected from farmers in the County Westmeath.

In the opinion of the Gárda officer, he was robbed of money.

The Attorney-General

He brought his case and tested it before his own selected tribunal.

The Attorney-General might depart from that line of argument.

The Attorney-General

I am going to depart from that line of argument. I do not understand why the Deputy should be so sore about it. I think my line of argument is a perfect answer to his.

The Attorney-General knows perfectly well what I mean.

The Attorney-General

The Deputy charged me here with being responsible for a deliberate and consistent breach of the law. I am not in any way responsible for the regulation or conduct of sheriffs' sales, and I have not been responsible for any of the regulations made by sheriffs with regard to the admission of the public or otherwise.

Even when a man is robbed.

The Attorney-General

I have pointed out to the Deputy that if there were any such provision, he should do as was done in Mullingar— seek redress before a jury of his fellow-countrymen. The only relevant part of the Deputy's speech was directed to the provision which gives the Minister power to make regulations for the control and management of pounds, as being impliedly designed to repeal the provisions of the law with regard to sale in public. I can assure him quite fully that it does not do any such thing.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 48; Níl, 33.

  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seén.
  • Norton, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Broderick, William Joseph.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Vincent.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 9.
Every person who—
(a) damages or breaks into any pound, or
(b) releases from or takes out of any pound any animals or chattels lawfully impounded therein, or
(c) uses violence, threats, or bribes for the purpose of securing the release from or the taking away of any animals or chattels lawfully impounded in any pound, or
(d) uses violence, threats, or bribes for the purpose of inducing or preventing any person who has been appointed under this Act to be a pound-keeper or to be assistant to a pound-keeper from undertaking or executing the office of such keeper or assistant or for the purpose of inducing any such person to execute the duties of such office corruptly or negligently,
shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding nine months or, at the discretion of the court, to both such fine and such imprisonment.

I beg to move amendment No. 1:—

In line 32, after the word "thereof" to insert the words "to a fine not exceeding £1 in respect of the first offence and in respect of any subsequent offence".

Section 9 provides that any person who damages or breaks into any pound or releases from or takes out of any pound any animals or chattels lawfully impounded therein, or uses violence, threats and so on, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50 or imprisonment for any term not exceeding nine months or, at the discretion of the court, to both such fine and such imprisonment. When we dealt with this matter on the Second Reading I put before the House the appalling particulars of an Offaly case where, in very extraordinary circumstances, goods to the value of more than £200, probably £300, were taken in respect of a rates debt amounting to £25. That was only one sample of the type of thing the people have suffered. Deputy MacEoin has mentioned a case where, in respect of a debt of £34, 28 cattle were seized. We have known places in South Tipperary where large numbers of cattle were seized and disposed of at rates such as 5/- for a cow. If the person from whom goods were seized in such an exorbitant and exaggerated way is driven by his feelings to break into and damage a pound, it is not necessarily attempting to stand up for law-breaking in any way or minimising it in any way to say that it is a very scandalous business to take powers so that that man can be fined £50 and perhaps as well be imprisoned for nine months.

Deputy Mulcahy says he is not attempting to minimise the question of breaking the law but, judging by this amendment, I do not know what else he is doing. He has introduced certain alleged facts about certain cases where people had goods seized. He apparently thinks that those people may feel justified subsequently in taking forcible possession of, or breaking into and damaging pounds and he says it is scandalous to impose the penalties suggested here. There have been hard cases where people have been deprived of premises and land and, under the Enforcement of Court Orders Act, 1926, the penalty imposed was six months and a fine of £50 for the first offence. That merely has been followed here. If the Deputy wants to reduce the term from nine to six months, I do not see any objection.

Is the Minister accepting my amendment?

No, I do not accept it.

Question put: "That the proposed words be inserted."
The Committee divided: Tá, 33; Níl, 47.

  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Broderick, William Joseph.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McGuire, James Ivan.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Vincent.

Níl

  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Movlan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In line 32 to delete the word "fifty" and substitute therefor the word "two".

The Minister has endeavoured to make some point to the effect that he has seen an Act under which there was an offence somewhat similar to this where the previous Administration imposed a penalty of £50 and six months. I do not think I need go into the reasons why any Act of that kind might have been passed. I want to put this to the Minister: that if there was an Act passed in 1925 which provided for the imposition of a fine of £50 on a farmer, there might have been some chance of his having £50 then. But the Minister has been in office for three years now, and over a group of agricultural products, including cattle, poultry, bacon, fresh pork, butter and eggs, the income of the farmers, which was about £24,000,000 in 1931, was reduced to £8,000,000 in 1934. I shall go a certain distance to meet the Minister. The amendment is to delete the word "fifty" and substitute the word "two." Bearing in mind how much more difficult it is for the farmer to get £50 now as compared with 1931, if the Minister is agreeable I shall make it £15, and then the section would read: "shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £15." Failing any kind of accommodation like that, based upon the actual financial position of the farmers to-day, I shall leave in the £2.

The amendment is not accepted.

Here we have the Minister, in the circumstances spoken of so often here, and in which seizures being made from farmers mean taking their whole stock, making no allowance for that. He makes no provision for a first offence. He asks for power to mulct a man like that in £50 as well as being liable to possible imprisonment. If all this is coming to the farmer, then, as far as I can help it, the farmers will hear the tramping feet of the Fianna Fáil army coming to them and the Minister will tramp through the Division Lobby again.

I do not see the Deputy's point. He is asking for some concession for people who, he expects, are going to commit a crime. He wants to reduce the penalty of £50 to £2 where people are going to commit a crime with their eyes open.

I am asking the Minister to take cognisance of what any Deputy on the far side who has had anything to do with the carrying on of local government can tell him. The Minister is following up men whom his policy has reduced to a condition of absolute poverty and he is trying now at a very late hour in the day to pound respect for the law into their minds. He should take some cognisance of the circumstances to which his policy has reduced these people and not be looking for his pound of flesh on the first occasion. The Minister knows very well the circumstances in the country that he is dealing with, and if he goes for his £50 and nine months' imprisonment, he can go, but he is showing the House that he has very little conception of the conditions in the country or of the way in which he should go about the business. Unless those responsible for the administration of the law at present show that they have some conception of the conditions of the people they cannot expect respect for the law. They will be driven to coming back and saying that violence and disorder are being caused in the country because breaches of the law have occurred. What is happening is that breaches of the law are being forced by an Administration which has had no consideration for the people in putting its policy into operation and which now has no consideration for the people when carrying out the very necessary work of finding money somewhere to maintain the services that the people want.

Question put: "That the word proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 33.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Norton, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Broderick, William Joseph.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McGuire, James Ivan.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John,
  • Keating, John.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Vincent.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.

The House having decided that the sum of £50 stand, amendment No. 3 may not be moved. We will now take amendment No. 4 and the decision on it will govern No. 5.

I move amendment No. 4:—

In line 33 to delete the word "nine" and substitute the word "one."

The unfortunate man whose conditions, as I say, are such that his income is reduced to one-third, or perhaps reduced much more than that, who may be driven to commit an offence under this Bill by an exorbitant seizure such as those I mentioned, is not only liable to be fined £50 under the section as it stands, but is liable to be taken from his family and imprisoned for nine months. Bad as are his conditions when trying to work under present circumstances, bad as they might be when he is deprived of £50 or perhaps £150 worth of his stock to make up the £50, he is liable as well to be taken away from his work and his family for a period of nine months. If that is going to happen then the members of the Fianna Fáil Party are going to tramp, tramp, tramp out their decision through the Division Lobbies.

The Deputy knows that in some cases which have arisen already people have been organised and are paid by an organisation to smash into those pounds. We saw in the Cork case that men were employed by an organisation at £2 each. They were put into a lorry and paid by that organisation to attack and break down a pound, or what may be called a pound because cattle were impounded there. I have not very much doubt but that that organisation, which is a very influential one, is well able to pay the fines of those men when they are fined. I do not think, unless the Deputy wants to encourage them, that he can excuse in any other way trying to make the penalties as light as possible for people who act in this way. The Deputy will remember that in those cases it is not the so-called afflicted farmers we hear about. The big farmer who wants to stand out as a member of an organisation and make a hero of himself by saying he can pay but is not morally liable to pay is not the person who is going to suffer imprisonment. He will be in the background paying people to do that work for him, as happened in the Cork case. The unfortunate people who were duped into acting in that way were not people who were concerned with annuities. One of them was an unfortunate labouring man.

That is the man to whom you are going to give nine months' imprisonment.

Well, then, if that man sees the penalty there, as I presume he does see the penalty, if he is paid by these people to do a certain act, I do not think that man is such a fool as to undertake on behalf of any organisation or any people work like that until he has counted the cost.

Say a poor farmer has his cattle seized by the sheriff for costs in, say, an insurance case, and his cows are put into the pound. He tries to get to the pound and brings some of his neighbours with him. He is not allowed to get in. If he takes an ashplant and hits the wall a stroke, that can be taken as violence, and he can be sentenced to nine months for that, as the Attorney-General admitted. In these hard times in which the farmers find themselves in circumstances that are abnormal, these men, ordinarily law-abiding citizens, are incensed by the situation in which they find themselves. I must not be taken as saying that there must be sanction for any breach of the law in any time or place. But there are circumstances in which people are driven to take steps which in cooler times they would not take. If in such cases you are to inflict nine months' imprisonment or a fine of £50 for the first offence, I think it is a most outrageous punishment for people who are driven by distress and circumstances. I suggest that the fine be reduced considerably.

Does not the Deputy know that these are the maximum penalties that the justice dealing with the case may impose? These are the maximum penalties. If the Deputy wants to look up any other offences that come under the criminal law, he will find that the maximum penalties are extremely high in most cases and that the justice has discretion and can exercise it according to the circumstances connected with any particular case.

Suppose I go to the pound-keeper and say to him: "Look here, the sheriff or whoever is conducting this sale is obviously an unscrupulous person, and he is using the pound of which you are supposed to be in charge, for the purpose of robbing perfectly respectable men, because he is going to knock their cattle down, for a tithe of their value, to John Brown or some other secret service agent sent down by the Government. These cattle will be got away. You may have heard what happened in Mullingar, where the legitimate bid of a bona fide farmer was deliberately ignored by the person in charge of the sale. Now, in the light of these facts, you are a responsible man and you undertook to keep the pound if it was properly conducted. But you find that the agents of the Government are coming down here and deliberately abusing the facilities afforded by this pound. Therefore, I suggest to you that you ought to quit the position, and if you find that you are not in a position to forego the emoluments, I am prepared to put my hand in my pocket in order to save the name of the son of a decent family. I will give you whatever is needed to make it possible for you to forego the wages you are getting for keeping the pound under these undesirable conditions.” Do I commit a crime if I say that?

Every case has to be taken on its merits.

Dismiss from your mind that I am bringing undue pressure on the pound-keeper. I simply go to him and offer him facilities which will enable him to give up this detestable work which he had undertaken, work which has become detestable under the new circumstances. In doing that, do I commit a crime?

The Deputy knows what is the position—trying to bribe a public servant.

The Deputies on the far side apparently do not.

Let us get this clear. If I go to such a man and suggest to him that he should resign, in a perfectly legal way, the office he holds, that is not bribing a servant of the State because the condition precedent to offering him any monetary reward is that he should cease to be a servant of the State. What this Bill purports to do is to create a new crime. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that so far from attempting to bribe a servant of the State, the man actually ceases to be a servant of the State and that is the condition on which I give him anything. Up to this it was never a crime to say to a person: "If you cease to be a servant of the State I am prepared to compensate you for the sacrifice you are making." Section 9 (d) makes it a crime

"... for every person who uses violence, threats and bribes for the purpose of inducing or preventing any person who has been appointed under this Act to be a pound-keeper or to be an assistant pound-keeper from undertaking or executing the office of such keeper or assistant..."

So that now we have it made a crime to ask a man to retire from an office which makes it incumbent on him to carry into effect the corrupt purpose of an unscrupulous Minister for Justice or an unscrupulous administrator at a sheriff's sale; but it is also a crime to suggest to a person who contemplates undertaking these duties that he should not undertake them and that if it is a monetary consideration that is inducing him to do what he believes to be wrong that rather than do what is wrong he will make good the money lost by not undertaking the office. The making of such a suggestion becomes a crime if this section passes into law and the person is liable to nine months' imprisonment. It is bad enough to make this a crime but to fix a penalty of nine months' imprisonment for going to a man and saying: "You come of respectable people and I want to save you from helping people who are engaged in detestable and unscrupulous acts." Well, if that is a crime the time will shortly come when we will have to get a licence from the Minister for Justice to bid one another good-morning.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 47; Níl, 32.

  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Norton, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • 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.

Níl

  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGuire, James Ivan.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Vincent.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.

The Committee having decided that nine months stand as the maximum term of imprisonment, amendment No. 5 falls.

I move amendment No. 6:—

In lines 34 and 35 to delete the words "or at the discretion of the court to both such fine and such imprisonment.

The effect of this amendment is that a person found guilty of any of these offences could be sentenced to a fine of £50 or a term of nine months' imprisonment. Again, if the Minister has any consideration at all for the present situation in the country and the people against whom this is directed and the temptations that are in front of them, he must realise that there is nothing but vindictiveness in a clause which would make the people of that class liable to a fine of £50 and nine months' imprisonment at the present time. The conditions under which some of these people are living are bad enough, but this is simply wiping them and their families out of existence altogether.

I have already pointed out that this section is designed to create new crimes. There can be no question of suggesting, on the floor of this House, that any citizen of this State is entitled to break the law as enacted by Oireachtas Eireann. A duty devolves upon us to be scrupulous to enact the law in accordance with justice and in accordance with the ordinary demands of society, but, once it is enacted, it is a truism to say that it is binding on every citizen of the State and it is the duty of every citizen to conform to the law until such time as it is amended by the same power that passed it originally. What I object to is the creation of new crimes without any advertence at all to what we are doing. I have asked the Minister for Justice if it is his desire to make it a crime to go to a citizen of this State and to say: "Fianna Fáil is asking you to discharge duties as pound-keeper which no civilised Government in any country would ask a pound-keeper to discharge; I am prepared to make up to you the tempting fiduciary inducement that the Government offers," and the Minister for Justice comes along and says: "That is a crime under Section 9 of the Pounds (Provision and Maintenance) Act," and I can then be sent to jail for nine months because I want to induce a self-respecting man not to degrade himself and all belonging to him by joining in what I believe to be illegal and oppressive sheriffs' sales, which are conducted for the purpose of plundering respectable men of property which ought not to be taken from them.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 37.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McGuire, James Ivan.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Vincent.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Again, I want to oppose Section 9. If the Fianna Fáil troops are marching on the farmers, let the farmers see them march.

On Section 9. There is just one point I should like to mention. The section speaks of it as an offence to release from or take out of any pound any animals or goods lawfully impounded therein, but there does not appear to be any provision in the section as to any particular time. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when can cattle be legally removed from the pound once they have been put in the pound.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Ta, 51; Níl, 37.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McGuire, James Ivan.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Reidy, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
The section ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."

I should be glad if the Minister would tell us what he wants this section for. Under what circumstances does he propose to mandamus the local authority? If the local authority fails to repair or do any work upon the pound that the county registrar thinks necessary, the county registrar has authority under another section to get the work done himself and serve the bill on the county council. What are those mandamus powers required for? If the mandamus powers are for the purpose of compelling a county council to do something that it cannot do, this House should not pass a section authorising mandamus proceedings; because it is of the essence of that writ that it will not issue to command an impossibility. What is the use of the Minister issuing a mandamus against the Clare County Council to build a pound if the council cannot get the money because the supporters of President de Valera will not pay their rates?

That is very old.

Will not pay their rates for the same reason that the ratepayers in several other counties will not pay their rates—because they cannot pay their rates. When that situation has developed, what is the use of issuing a writ of mandamus against a county council to find money that is not there? Surely the Attorney-General will agree with me that no court will issue a writ of mandamus to anybody to do something that is physically impossible for him to do?

The Attorney-General

Then the section is all right.

Surely, it is true. The Attorney-General will agree with me in that. I want to ask the Attorney-General what is his view of the wisdom of seeking power to mandamus county councils to find money to do certain things, on the one hand, and of pursuing a policy of stripping the county council of money to do anything, with the other hand. That is what is being done at present and what Section 10 is for. Of course, heretofore, the answer of the Minister for Justice was that the county councils can get the money if they will vigorously prosecute the people who are withholding it, because they are merely withholding it in pursuit of a political conspiracy. Now, President de Valera's supporters are withholding it. Presumably, they are not in the conspiracy. We cannot believe that the Banner County is going to desert the President, so we must be forced to the conclusion that the fact is that they are not able to pay—a conclusion which we have been trying to force into the heads of the Government for the past 12 months. What is the point, then, of seeking powers to mandamus local authorities? Surely, the Minister ought to face facts and realise that he cannot get blood out of a turnip or water out of a stone; that he may get all the powers of mandamus and certiorari and all the rest, but if the money has been stripped from the people by the consummate folly of Fianna Fáil, the High Courts, by mandamus or otherwise, cannot knock it out of the county councils, because the county councils are not able to get it from the people whom Fianna Fáil have beggared.

What is the use of having the same argument repeated ad nauseam? Deputy Dillon gets up on one section after another and repeats the same thing. There are county councils paying their way. There are county councils which are very far from being in the condition the Deputy pictures here. The object of this mandamus as an alternative is to compel county councils to provide pounds, and it is not intended to be used for any other purpose. If, as Deputy Dillon tried to picture, the county councils find themselves not in a position to get the money, then the mandamus proceedings would be of no effect. It is all right if Deputy Dillon wishes to believe that, but people on this side of the House do not believe it, and the facts do not prove it. Deputy Dillon may wish to make the most of any little indication there was of slackness in some counties in the collection of rates. That is not something that happened this year for the first time. Various county councils have, for years past, been in arrears with rates; but those county councils which have been pushed on have been able to get the rates in. When the rate collection is closed, I am quite satisfied that the position will be very far from what the Deputy desires.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 36.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flinn, Hugo. V.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Jorden, Stephen.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • 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.

Níl

  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • McGuire, James Ivan.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rowlette, Robert James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Sections 11 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."

I desire to draw the attention of the House to the title of this Bill. It is described as the Pounds (Provision and Maintenance) Bill, 1935. It has an alternative description, number 1 of 1935. It may be described, I think, as the Fianna Fáil New Year card to the agricultural community.

Question put and agreed to.
Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage fixed for Wednesday next, the 3rd April, 1935.
Top
Share