asked the Minister for Justice why it was decided to execute warrants against farmers who took part in the road blockade in view of the prospect of a settlement of the main issues at stake.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Warrants against Farmers.
33.
The enforcement of rate warrants and the execution of warrants for arrest in default of payment of fines began on the morning of Monday, 24th April. Subsequently, suggestions were made that the Government were already aware that the "No Rates" campaign was to be called off on the following Friday. Associated with that criticism is the suggestion, repeated by the Deputy in the House last week, that the Government acted with a "show of force" that they knew to be unnecessary because—so it is alleged— it was known to be NFA policy that there should be no resistance to seizures.
The following, however, are facts, and anybody who wishes to do so many check them for himself.
A meeting of the NFA National Council was held on Wednesday, 19th April. On the following day, the daily newspapers published the text of replies by the NFA President and other NFA spokesmen to questions put to them by press reporters as to what had transpired at the Council meeting. The replies were to the following effect:
(1) the National Executive had declined to make any recommendation to the meeting of the National Council, and the National Council, in turn, declined to make any recommendations to local branches and County Executives;
(2) the NFA President said he thought that no conclusion, one way or the other, could be drawn about the views of delegates as a whole at the National Council meeting;
(3) the NFA President further stated that, even if a decision were taken at the next meeting to end the campaign, the National Council would not necessarily issue a positive statement to that effect or issue any statement at all. He said:
It is illegal to tell farmers not to pay rates but you do not have to tell them to pay them. But, when the time comes, there is a number of formulae that could be used for a decision either way.
According to the newspapers on the following two days—Friday and Saturday—NFA spokesmen indicated that County Executives were to consider— or were considering—the matter before the next meeting. I am not aware even now—and the Government, at the time of their decision, certainly were not aware—of any statement from NFA sources, before Monday 24th April, when enforcement had begun, that there was any modification whatsoever of the information given by the Association to the press and published on Thursday, 20th.
As to the suggestion that the warrants were executed with an unnecessary show of force, and that it was known that no resistance would be offered, I will confine myself to just two items of evidence from amongst many that I could select, both from the newspapers of Saturday, 22nd April, less than 48 hours before the enforcement operation began. The Irish Independent had a statement from an NFA spokesman that, despite the fact that there was an NFA directive that there should be no violence, any seizures would definitely put farmers in the locality in a very angry mood. In other words, violence was not official NFA policy but local groups might resort to violence. That evening, the Evening Herald, in a reference to a report that a seizure for rates was to take place, carried the following statement, again by an NFA spokesman:
Farmers are at the ready in the locality and as soon as any move is made they will move in on the land and barricade it lock, stock and barrel.
We had already been told that if people resisting the execution of the court orders were removed by force, they would "protect themselves".
As the House is aware, the situation has now changed for the better and I hope that I am speaking for all the Members of the House in saying that commonsense now appears to be prevailing on the part of the people concerned.