Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Apr 1935

Vol. 19 No. 22

Pounds (Provision and Maintenance) Bill, 1935—Second Stage

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

It is proposed in this Bill to re-state in modern language the duty of local authorities in respect to the provision and maintenance of pounds. I think it will be conceded that the existing law as set out in the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1851, is antiquated and unsuitable to present conditions. As an example, the local authority such as the county council or such body has no powers as the law stands under that Act of 1851 to vote more than £10 for the provision of a pound. The result has been that in some counties there are no pounds. In other counties there are places that may be called pounds but which are really unsuitable plots of ground imperfectly fenced, undrained and badly sheltered, with the result that the stock that is impounded in them suffers hardship and, consequently, deteriorates in value. In this Bill power is being taken for the local authorities or, in default of the local authorities, the Minister concerned, to provide at greater cost suitable pounds. These conditions came to the notice of the then Government some seven years ago. The Bill drafted then was not introduced until recently. It is now before the Seanad. I take it that it was through pressure of other legislation that the Bill was not introduced at the time. I do not know, except on the ground of pressure, any reason why it was not then introduced because the conditions existing were somewhat akin to the conditions existing to-day, except that the conditions may be more accentuated to-day.

In the other House it was suggested that the purpose of this Bill was very different from what I have outlined; that it has something to do with the seizures in relation to land annuities, and so on. That is not so and I want to make that perfectly clear now. Under the existing law, the Enforcement of Courts Orders Act, 1926, the sheriff has absolute power to impound and sell all seized stock anywhere he likes, whether there is a pound or not. That is provided in the Act of 1926. From that point of view there is no necessity to introduce this Bill. The position is this: Every user of the country roads knows that there are a good many straying animals on the roads and the Gárda find it difficult to get the owners. They have no power to place those cattle anywhere except in the local pounds. The result is that in some cases they have to drive these animals a considerable distance to one of these local pounds. In some counties, as I have stated, there are no pounds. Senators can appreciate the difficulties that obtain in such places. Modern traffic, as we know it nowadays, does require the roads to be regulated in certain ways and if cattle are allowed to stray and the Gárda are unable to find their owners, there is the difficulty of exercising that control over traffic. That is the purpose of this Bill and it has no other purpose but this desirable purpose. To try to suggest that it has anything to do with seizures owing to the non-payment of annuities is absurd. The law as it stands is adequate for that purpose.

I think it is right that some few words should be expressed with regard to the introduction of this Bill. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, I think we cannot separate from our minds the fact that conditions at the present moment make a demand for increased accommodation in regard to pounds. It seems strange that the Minister has allowed all these years to pass by before introducing this measure. The fact that this measure has not been introduced before is a matter that deserves notice. I know it from my own knowledge that the accommodation that is provided at the present time for impounded stock is not sufficient. It is neither sufficient from the point of view of dimensions nor from the point of view of the maintenance provided for farmers' stock. The reasons are plain for everybody to understand. I think it is quite bona fide to mention that the economic war and economic conditions generally have made it quite impossible for farmers to meet their liabilities at present. Consequently, their cattle are being thrown into these pounds much more frequently than was ever so in the lives of anybody living at present. Even in what we considered the evil days of landlordism, such seizures were never more frequent and it was never so necessary to take so many cattle. I think that a much more suitable thing for the Government to do would be to try to revise conditions and to try to put it within the power of farmers to meet their commitments.

We cannot go that far. As long as you keep to the necessity, or otherwise, for pounds, I will allow you to proceed, but I cannot allow you to develop an argument on the economic war and the land annuities position. This is an administrative Bill.

It appears to me that the costs in respect of the seizures which are being made would be a legitimate subject for discussion and I respectfully suggest to you, Sir, that it would be a reasonable matter for public consideration as to whether these conditions could be revised or improved so that the necessity for pounds, either as at present or under the new conditions, will not arise so frequently.

There is another very important aspect of the matter, in addition to the points I have already mentioned. It is that it seems to be part and parcel of Government policy that local authorities must pay for the increasing of the accommodation in the local pounds. I agree with the Government that the pounds are not by any means sufficient and that they will continue in their insufficiency in greater measure, but I suggest that to compel local authorities to provide this increased accommodation is altogether unfair. It is unfair to ask local authorities to impose these charges on the local rates. They are only part of the charges which are being imposed as mandatory charges on local ratepayers at present. Such charges are imposed in many measures which I might not be at liberty to mention at present and they are being imposed in an increasing manner on local rates. There is an even greater grievance than that—a grievance which, to my mind, is intolerable. In counties like my own, in which a Commissioner is in charge, all that is necessary is for the Government to send down a requisition to him to extend the accommodation at the cost of the local ratepayers. I think that is an intolerable state of affairs, and instead of imposing these charges and allowing these conditions to continue, the Government and this House would be much better occupied in considering whether these things could be rectified and whether, in fact, instead of having our earning power and ability to meet our commitments, taken away, we could be put in the position of being able to hold our cattle and stock. These are matters which, I think, are relevant for consideration under this Bill.

I agree with the general principles of this Bill and I agree that pounds are necessary. The so-called pounds in the country are, in many cases, a disgrace and it is a good job, if cattle are going to be seized or distrained or taken up when straying, that they should be housed under humane conditions. The introduction of the Bill, however, at this particular time was very disquieting in its effect on the farmers and I am glad the Minister has assured the House, in his statement to-day, that its introduction at this particular time was in no way due to the fact that there were going to be wholesale seizures by the Government. It is very satisfactory that the Minister has given the House that assurance.

As Senator Dillon has pointed out, there are provisions in the Bill which will impose a good deal of expense on local authorities. In many cases existing pounds would meet requirements because very often only a stray ass is impounded and there is no necessity for going to a great deal of expense and paying the salary of a pound-keeper for the impounding of a stray donkey. The taking away of power, to a great extent, from the local authority will lead to a great deal more expense in the upkeep of these pounds. The Minister takes power to fix a salary for a pound keeper and for an assistant who may be paid in fees or in fees and salary. I should like the Minister to give us some assurance that there will not be any great departure from the old system with regard to the payment of pound keepers either in fees or salary.

The law, as it stands at the moment, is that the 1851 Act set out that where a requisition was made to a local authority by three justices of the peace—subsequently, that was interpreted as meaning district justices—such local authority should provide the pound, but the expenditure was limited to £10. There is practically no change in this Bill, except that, as I said, it is re-stated in modern language and except in so far as we are forced by experience to the conclusion that £10 in modern times is absolutely inadequate to provide any sort of pound. Some reference, as I have already said, was made to the purposes for which these pounds were to be used. I want to quote the section of the 1926 Enforcement of Court Orders Act to show that there is no necessity for the Bill so far as seizures for the one particular purpose referred to here are concerned. Section 9, subsection (2) of the 1926 Act sets out:

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.

That gave absolute authority in regard to the collection of annuities or in any abnormal situation that might be created. There is no purpose in this Bill of trying to force local authorities to go into any wild expenditure. It is only when it is brought to our notice by authorities that certain things have to be provided for, that steps may have to be taken by the Minister to ask them to provide the necessary accommodation.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 1st May, 1935.
Top
Share