I beg to move the amendment standing in my name, which reads as follows:—
To delete sub-section (1) and to substitute therefor as follows:—
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary or Clerk of any local authority by which a rate has been made if and when instructed to do so by an inspector of the Ministry of Local Government to furnish in the prescribed form and manner, to the Minister for Local Government, the name of any person (in this Act called the defaulter) who has not paid such rate or part of such rate due and payable by him, and to which this section applies, together with the amount due by the defaulter in respect of the rate aforesaid and the situation and description of the property in respect of which the said rate has been assessed (in this Act referred to as the rateable property) and thereupon it shall be lawful for the Minister if and when he shall think proper to issue to the Under-Sheriff of the County in which the rateable property is situate, a warrant in the prescribed form certifying the name of the defaulter, the amount due by him as aforesaid and the situation and description of the rateable property in respect of which the rate is recoverable, and authorising such Under-Sheriff to levy in accordance with the provisions of this Act the amount due aforesaid, provided however that no person shall be deemed a defaulter within the meaning of this Act who has paid a rate for any period between 30th September, 1920, and 30th September, 1922, in respect of any property situated within the area of such local authority to any person acting or purporting to act with authority as collectors to the local authority aforesaid."
This section departs radically from the first section of the Bill introduced by the Minister for Local Government. In that section the Minister had power to send a certificate of liability on any ratepayer to the Under-Sheriff of any county in which the defaulter resides or has a place of business. That was one portion. But I hold that such a procedure is altogether wrong. Rates have been assessed, and the principle governing the assessment of rates has been that the property was liable more than the individual. It had a local and not a mere personal effect. Under this Bill as introduced there is a radical departure. The Minister at all times had power to go down on lands and places. There is nothing novel in it. As such we are not objecting. But why go into other lands or into any other property of the defaulter? There are various reasons why a man may be a defaulter, some of them even honourable reasons.
As a matter of fact, in law and practice, the premises which heretofore had been liable for the rates are not any other property held by the defaulter. At the present time, and seeing the enormous amount of poverty there is, the hardship is very great. Supposing a man had land in Clare and lives in Dublin, and that he has been deprived of the use of this land in Clare through no fault of his, is it right that his business in Dublin should be held liable for the rates on the farm in the County Clare, that he has not been able to use? There is a constitutional objection also. The land is there, and it was there for the past three years, when the rates could have been levied by distress, if necessary. But that was not done. The defaulter in this case is not so much to blame as the County Council; they could have gone and issued a distress warrant, at the right time, and season, if the rates that were due on such a farm had not been paid. The deduction should now only be made from the compensation which is being allowed to persons who suffered injury to their property. It is for the Minister for Finance to deduct from the compensation the amounts that would pay these rates, and to forward them to the Secretaries of the Local Authorities. Now, the second portion of the amendment is: "Provided, however, that no person shall be deemed a defaulter within the meaning of the Act who has paid a rate for any period between the 30th September, 1920, and the 30th September, 1922, in respect of any property situated within the area of such local authority to any person acting or purporting to act with authority as collectors to the local authority aforesaid." That is really designed to safeguard persons who paid unauthorised collectors who acted or purported to act under the Black and Tan regime. Under the provisions of the section of the Bill introduced by the Minister there is no safeguard whatever to anybody who paid his rates under these circumstances. I can speak with authority on this matter, because I paid rates to one of those unauthorised collectors, yet I am returned as a defaulter. I can vouch for the payment I made, for I have a receipt, but under the provisions of this measure my receipt is invalid. I hold the Minister ought to make some such provision against these things, and, seeing that he has not done so, I must ask the Committee to accept this amendment.
