I desire to make some remarks on the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not in any way wish to challenge the necessity for drastic measures in the collection of arrears, and I have got no sympathy for people who wish to shirk the payment of their arrears. I do, however, think that the facts in connection with Local Government during the past years should be taken into account and known to the Seanad, so that regard should be had to the special circumstances of certain areas in which the arrear list is specially heavy. A study of the actual rates over past years is exceedingly interesting. The Government have supplied a return to the Dáil giving particulars of rates in the year 1914, and the years 1919-20, 1920-21, 1921-22—a most complete and valuable document. It gives the rates in each district area throughout the whole of the Saorstát. We get the extraordinary fact that in the year 1914 there is a great similarity in the rates throughout the whole country. They are all in the region of between 3/- and 3/6. The list was of such a length that I have not examined every one, but I find an extraordinary closeness between those rates. I am referring now to rates on land in the rural areas.
I have taken at random four counties, namely, a district of Carlow, where the rate is 3/-; a district of Clare—Kilrush—where the rate is 3/5; Bantry, where the rate is 3/6, and my own district of Waterford, where the rate is 3/5. When we come to examine these districts for the years 1921-22, and 1922-23, we find an extraordinary disparity. I had to take the years 1921-22, and 1922-23 together, because in 1921-22 they were exceptionally high owing to the withdrawal of the grants. These grants were restored the next year, and if you take both together and divide by two, you get a fair rate for the two years. They are:—In Carlow, 5/10; Kilrush, 11/3; Bantry, 7/8, and in the Waterford area, 10/6. In one area they are less than double pre-war; in another area they are a little over double, and in two areas, Clare and Waterford, they are more than three times. When you come to go into the explanation it is perfectly clear. These local bodies were used for what you might call war or political purposes. I am not challenging that. That is past history. But they were used for that purpose. Influence was brought to bear to return people for that special purpose, and I think it is generally admitted that people who would not have been returned otherwise were returned. Then the incidences of war naturally fell very differently on the various districts. In Clare and Waterford especially the combination of these circumstances produced great extravagance in Local Government.
There has been these abnormal conditions. The point I wish to make is that it is not fair that the entire increase of costs due to these abnormal conditions should be borne by the local rates. If there was this disparity pre-war, and you could say that Clare was always badly administered, or that Waterford was always badly administered, there would be some justification for placing the increased cost now on the rates. But that is not the fact. The figures show that the administration, so far as it was reflected by the rates, was fairly even before the war, and I claim, and I think it is common knowledge, that this increase of rates is largely due to conditions over which the local authorities had no control. For that reason these increased costs should not be borne by the local authorities. There is a very acute sense of grievance throughout the country, more especially amongst the farming community, at the burden of these rates.
In Clare, as the Minister, I think, knows there has been a very heavy arrear list, and a feeling amongst the farmers that there is great injustice in enforcing this rate owing to that fact. That is further reinforced by the Inquiry. The Minister has very generously granted an Inquiry into the case of these two counties. What does the Inquiry in the case of Clare reveal? I have not been able to get this from the Official Report, or even from the Press reports, but I have got it on good authority that one witness said the rates were used to defend a prisoner who was being tried by the British authorities, and that they also used these rates as a deposit for persons standing for the Dáil. In face of these facts which the Inquiry brought out, surely it is unfair that all counties should be treated alike, and that there should be no discrimination made in the case of those counties where the rates have been especially high owing to special circumstances. That is the point I wish the Minister to deal with, whether the Government will not take each county into account, and while enforcing the arrears, where a good case is shown give relief from the Central Fund to these counties. I know it is said that the Budget must balance, or that we can do nothing. Surely that is not a sound generality. The Budget, we know, must balance, but there are certain charges in the Budget which might be reduced and the saving on these charges might go to more important charges, such as I have indicated.
There is one other matter. In County Waterford, and I believe elsewhere, there is a very large number of unexecuted decrees in the hands of the sheriffs. I know that in Waterford especially there are complaints from shopkeepers and others who have got these decrees that the sheriff's officers will not go out. It is very unfair that if a defaulter holds these unexecuted judgements he should be proceeded against with all the rigour asked for in the Bill. I am going to put down an amendment which I hope the Government will consider—the legal phraseology does not matter at the moment— that where a defaulter holds an unexecuted decree the value of that decree should be taken into account, and he shall not be proceeded against until the decree is enforced. There is a feeling of great discontent at the failure of the sheriffs or their officers—whatever the reasons may be—to enforce the decrees of the courts.
