Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Nov 1933

Vol. 50 No. 1

Expiring Laws Bill, 1933—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be read a Second Time. Pages two and three of the Bill set out the Acts which it is already proposed to continue under this Bill, which has been an annual one. A memorandum has been circulated to Deputies—and no doubt has been carefully read by them —which explains why the Acts set out in the Bill should be continued on the Statute Book. I do not know what points Deputies may require to raise in that connection, but if there is any criticism to be offered I should like it to be dealt with on the Committee Stage. This Bill is a composite Bill affecting many Departments. The sections have no relation to one another except the fact that they relate to Acts which normally would expire if this Bill were not passed. Accordingly it would be necessary for Ministers to have some information as to the various points which Deputies might desire to raise. In that connection, as I have already suggested, it seems to me that those matters might be more conveniently discussed on the Committee Stage.

In connection with this Bill there are three points which I want to raise and which might be looked into. The first has reference to the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, under which I think labourers' cottages are built in this country. I should like to know, since it is the purpose of the Government to continue that Act under its present form, if they are in a position to make any statement of their intentions in regard to the scheme which has been put forward to facilitate the purchase of labourers' cottages by such tenants as are desirous of purchasing them. If they have nothing to say on that matter will they be in a position to reassure the House that a scheme directed towards that end will not in any way interfere with the security of tenure of a labourer who does not wish to purchase his house, but wishes to remain a tenant in the house which he already has? In that connection I should also like to hear from the Minister the Government's view as to how the annuity for the purchase of a labourer's cottage would compare with the average rent paid by labourers occupying labourers' cottages throughout the country at the present time. In arriving at the sum for which a purchasing labourer would become liable I think the Minister should take into consideration the amount the labourer would be called upon to pay in respect of rates and repairs on a cottage of which he was the tenant purchaser instead of the ordinary tenant.

I take it, sir, that it is relevant to ask the Minister to deal with certain aspects of legislation that might be introduced by this Expiring Laws Bill. I should also like the Minister, when dealing with this question, to say if he has considered devising a scheme whereunder a sinking fund could be set up in each county, into which would be paid the annuities charged on each house which a labourer was in the process of purchasing; and whether, on the security of the annuities being paid into that sinking fund, a new cottage could be built for every cottage that was made the subject of a purchase annuity agreement? I believe that in that way you can vastly increase the accommodation for agricultural labourers, and at the same time meet the desires of agricultural labourers who want to buy out their own cottage, which they now must occupy as a tenant only.

Another measure which is to be re-enacted under this Bill is the Local Authorities (Central Purchasing) Act. Part of that Act provides that no local authority can purchase requirements locally without comparing the price quoted by the local merchant with the price quoted by a supplier authorised under the Local Authorities (Central Purchasing) Act. The ridiculous anomaly not infrequently arises that when a man in charge of works in a rural district, which are under the control of the local authority, wants a pennyworth of screws, if he buys them and gets seven instead of nine screws, the auditor is liable to surcharge the local authority for the two screws. At a distance that sounds impossible, but in practice it can be extremely inconvenient. A case came under my attention where a waterpipe burst and inundated someone's house. When the plumber wanted to repair that waterpipe he had to get in touch with the local authority, to find out what was the Central Purchasing Board's price for solder. Unless he could get a quotation locally as cheap as that of the Central Purchasing Board, the plumber could not buy, except by sending a requisition to the local authority and getting it direct from the authorised undertaking. Clearly there should be power in the local authority to relax the regulations for trivial purchases.

With regard to No. 8 in the Schedule —The Harbours, Docks and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act— I understood that Act is repealed or superseded by a Bill which is at present passing through this House. Whether it is deemed desirable to keep that Bill in operation until it is actually repealed by the Bill now passing through the House is something we have to find out.

I would like to hear the present Government's attitude on the Increase of Rent Act. As far as I am aware, that Act was originally passed with a view to protecting tenants from extortion, owing to the housing shortage that obtained. When the present Government came into office, in an exceptionally eloquent Budget speech, the Minister for Finance declared that the shortage of houses in this country was virtually at an end; that Fianna Fáil had put their shoulders to the wheel, and that the millennium was in sight. The shoulders are still at the wheel, but the millennium has not turned up yet. I want to know from the Government when will the realisation of their housing policy make the Increase of Rent Act unnecessary. Are we to assume that they have made so little impression on the housing shortage so far, that this extremely drastic legislation is still necessary? In that connection I think I am entitled to say that the fruits of the Government's activity in housing are very disappointing. I had sincerely hoped that after 18 months we would have made some impression on the housing shortage. I regret to say that I think the Increase of Rent Act is just as necessary to-day as it was when Fianna Fáil came into office. We have heard a great deal of talk about houses, and we have actually passed a number of Acts dealing with houses, but I would be very much interested to hear, from any Deputy, news of a substantial addition to the available housing accommodation. I invite contradiction of the statement that, so far as I am aware, not one tenement dweller in the City of Dublin has been taken out of a tenement house by the Fianna Fáil Government. We have had 18 months of Fianna Fáil administration. They announced that they were going to make an end to the slums in this city, not to go outside that to the grave problem that exists. I challenge them to produce proof that there is one person less living in tenement houses in Dublin than there was when they came into office.

I will answer that question.

I invited a categorical answer to that question some months ago.

The Schedule to this Bill covers a very wide field of legislation. If every Deputy were to discuss details of legislation, or the problems that demand legislation, or questions that may arise out of every Act scheduled, the discussion would be interminable. The slum problem in Dublin is surely not relevant to the question whether or not any particular Act should be continued.

I shall, of course, pass from the line of argument I was pursuing as to whether in fact it was necessary to re-enact the Increase of Rent Act. I was pointing out that Fianna Fáil undertook to build so many houses that there would be a surplus. If there is a surplus the Increase of Rent Act becomes an unnecessary instrument. I am suggesting that through their ineffective housing policy there is ground for re-enacting the Increase of Rent Act, because there is just as great a shortage now as when the Act was passed.

It is not for the Chair to argue that matter with the Deputy.

When the Chair thinks the line of argument I was pursuing is irrelevant, I shall depart from it. However, I have raised a few points on which I should be very glad to hear the comments of the Minister at the appropriate time.

The question raised by Deputy Dillon dealing with The Harbours, Docks and Piers Act is raised in a more explicit form in connection with the Motor Car Act of 1903. The Road Traffic Act has been passed for some time and I think it was understood that the passage of that Act would enable the Minister to take the Motor Car Act of 1903 from the list of expiring laws that are being continued. Perhaps the Minister would consider that matter.

The Attorney-General

It is repealed by an Act that has not yet come into operation and for that reason it is necessary to continue it.

Is there an appointed day?

The Attorney-General

The appointed day has not yet arrived.

With regard to the Combined Purchasing Act I have availed of the opportunity each year, on the passage of this Bill, to call attention to abuses that have arisen in connection with that Act. It is generally denied that such abuses prevail. I was in a position one year to point to actual cases that came under my notice, when an apology was tendered for these abuses. During the last year the abuses continued and when they were brought to the notice of the Department of Local Government there was practically a refusal to investigate them. There is very grave discontent through the country with regard to the working of that measure. Local officials are availing of an Act passed to enable public institutions to purchase goods at contract prices to get goods for their personal use and for their friends. I think the Minister should see that such meanness and such dishonesty are not tolerated. I was amazed at the reply received from the Department of Local Government two or three months ago when substantial instances of such abuses were submitted. The reply practically indicated that no inquiries would be made. I ask the Minister now to undertake that these abuses will be investigated and that they will not be tolerated in future. I am prepared to supply the letters before the Final Stages of the Bill are passed.

I merely want to say in concluding the debate that the points that have been raised by the Deputies will be brought under the notice of the Ministers concerned and I hope that on the Committee Stage their criticisms will be dealt with.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 22nd November.
Top
Share