Vol. 6 No. 34
I am accepting the following amendment passed by the Seanad:—
In sub-section (1). The words from "so far as" in line 23, to the end of the sub-section deleted.
This is necessary in order to avoid overlapping in connection with the Enforcement of Law (Occasional Powers) Bill.
The following amendment has been passed by the Seanad:
In sub-section (3). After the sub-section a new sub-section (4) added, as follows:—
"No levy shall be made by the under-sheriffs under this section against the goods, animals or chattels of a defaulter who, prior to the issue of the warrants under this Act, has delivered to the under-sheriff a writ or writs of fieri-facias or a civil bill decree or decrees for execution, until the under-sheriff has made a return to such writ or writs of fieri-facias or a civil bill decree or decrees.”
I cannot agree to accept this amendment. With the motive underlying the most of it I have a certain amount of sympathy. It is safe to safeguard those people who, as a result of their inability to collect debts due to themselves, are unable to meet their obligations to local authorities. I take it the principal justification for the Bill lies in the fact that a large number of unexecuted decrees is at present in the hands of the sub-sheriff; but under the Enforcement of Law (Occasional Powers) Bill, it is proposed to greatly increase their powers. I believe when that Bill comes into operation cases of delay in the execution of writs will be greatly decreased in number.
As well as that, the powers conferred by the Local Government (Collection of Rates) Bill, 1923, are intended to be used very sparingly, and every precaution will be taken to avoid the infliction of undue hardship. It must also be remembered that apart from these considerations, the difficulties in the way of this amendment are practically insurmountable. With the large volume of work that the sub-sheriffs have in hands, it would be impossible for them to give priority to serving writs contemplated by this amendment, and it would in some cases entail searching through hundreds of writs before making a seizure.
The fact that if the sub-sheriff, through any oversight, fails to give this priority after this amendment were passed he might be liable to an action for damages, makes the case against accepting the amendment doubly strong.
From the point of view of policy it is also inadvisable to accept the amendment. Ratepayers are under an obligation to pay rates to local authorities for services rendered, and their liability to pay these rates should not be made to depend on the contingency of the possible execution of writs in the hands of the sub-sheriff. If this amendment were accepted there is no logical reason why the general principle should not also be admitted that the payment of rates should be made contingent on the payment of all debts due to the defaulting ratepayers. It is easy to see this would land us into a very invidious position.
The following amendment to Section 4 was passed at the Seanad:—
"In sub-section (2), after the word `authority' in line 57, the words `on notice to all persons interested' inserted."
I am accepting this amendment. It is only fair that in cases where the rate book is being altered the two parties whose names are being changed should have an opportunity of speaking for themselves. On this ground I have agreed to accept the amendment.
The following amendment was passed by the Seanad:—
In sub-section (2). After this sub-section a new sub-section (3) inserted as follows:—
"Any person aggrieved by an order made by a District Justice under this section may by notice served within one fortnight after the making of such order appeal from such order to the County Court Judge or Recorder for the county or county borough in which the tenement to which such order relates is situate."
I have agreed to accept this amendment. This is to give a right of appeal from the decision of the District Justices, and it is a safeguard which it is very desirable to have in here.
The next amendment reads:—
In sub-section (1), after the word "prepaid" in line 18, the word "registered" inserted.
I also accept this amendment. It is another safeguard which proposes that notice served by post should be registered.
The last amendment is:—
In sub-section (2) the words "put into the post," in lines 24-25, deleted, and the words "handed in and registered at a post office" substituted therefor.
I am also agreeing to this amendment, which is consequential on the previous one.
