Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Nov 1935

Vol. 59 No. 9

Labourers Bill, 1935—Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Davin

The Minister in his opening statement indicated that this Bill was brought forward for the purpose, as far as it was possible, of implementing the recommendations of a commission of inquiry set up to deal with this matter some years ago. But the Minister has not in fact in the Bill made provision for all these recommendations. From what I know, I do not think that this Bill is likely to be received with any great enthusiasm by the representatives of the tenants of labourers' cottages, because I think the majority have sufficient intelligence to make them realise that it is likely to bring greater benefits to the ratepayers than to the existing tenants of cottages who will come under the terms of the Bill.

There is a recommendation signed by four of the members of the commission stating that in their opinion the rents should be reduced by 50 per cent., and I think the Minister should make it quite clear to local authorities that any scheme likely to secure his approval should contain a provision carrying out that particular recommendation. I am not going to argue the question with the Minister as to whether the position of the tenant farmers who got the benefits of the 1933 Land Acts is comparable in any way with the position of the cottage tenants. But it is quite clear to me that, in some areas at any rate, the 25 per cent. reduction indicated by the Minister, when taken with the cost of repairs, is not going in reality to bring any reduction to the tenants of these cottages during the annuity period.

There is also another very serious point which should engage attention, if it has not already engaged the attention of the Minister, and that is, to what extent is the sum retained, with other amounts, representing local loans—£600,000, I think, is the total sum—to go to the benefit of existing cottage tenants under the terms of this Bill? Four years have already expired since these local loans payments were withheld from the British, and up to the present none of the benefits of the amount so withheld has in any way reached the pockets of the cottage tenants, nor has it been set aside even for improving the conditions of these cottages or maintaining them in a decent state of repair. I understand that under the terms of this Bill and under the section which compels the local authorities to put the cottages into a proper state of repair before the scheme comes into operation, a very large sum of money, a very large expenditure, will in many counties fall on the boards of health. I suggest that would be unfair, and I hope the Minister will give this proposal more consideration and that he will say that the sums withheld and used for other purposes by the Government should be set aside to subsidise the activities of the local authorities in helping to put these cottages into a proper state of repair. The moneys withheld from the British have been set aside for the purpose of reducing rents and annuities by 50 per cent., and to that extent the money has found its way into the pockets of the tenant farmers of the country. But the sum of £20,000 or £30,000 annually withheld during the past four years, and which had previously gone to the British Debt Commissioners, has been used for some purpose other than that of reducing the rents of cottages or in keeping them in proper repair. The sum withheld in the four years would reach a figure of between £80,000 and £100,000 now. I suggest to the Minister that that money be now made available to the boards of health for the purpose of putting the cottages into proper repair.

There is one other point to which I want to allude. The Minister did not indicate the type of scheme which he would regard as a model scheme and one which under the terms of this Bill he would sanction. I think the Minister and his Departmental officers will find themselves faced with a good deal of trouble and worry if he does not lay down in black and white the type of scheme which he would regard as acceptable to him and which would be acceptable to the boards of health— the type of scheme which he would sanction coming from the boards of health. The Minister, I suggest, should now lay down definitely to the boards of health a model scheme and say that under that scheme they must furnish him with the necessary data for having it put into operation at an early date. If the Minister does not do that now he is going to have different types of schemes coming from the boards of health—which will occasion a considerable amount of work in his own Department. The sums of money withheld from the British should be set aside now to subsidise the local authorities in putting the cottages now in many cases in a bad state of repair into a proper state of repair before they are handed over under the terms of the Bill to the tenant.

Mr. Brennan

It is very interesting to listen to Deputy Davin, with whom, incidentally, I am in entire agreement in advocating that the sums of money withheld from the British should be applied towards the restoration of the cottages and putting them into a good state of repair. It is very interesting to hear Deputy Davin advocating that course after running out of the House just now when a vote was being taken that the local authorities should not be held responsible under the Guaranteed Fund Bill to make good these moneys.

Mr. Davin

On a point of order, I want to say that Deputy Brennan and his colleagues apparently are endeavouring to lead the House to believe that I was one of the members of the House who was in opposition to the contents of the Bill. I suggest that he is completely out of order in introducing this matter under this Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. Brennan

Deputy Davin asked for information on the Bill from Deputy Dillon and got it.

Mr. Davin

And got information from Deputy Dillon?

Mr. Brennan

Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle

That matter has been disposed of now.

Mr. Brennan

Very well. The matter has been disposed of, but it is interesting certainly. I entirely agree with Deputy Davin that if anybody is making money out of the labourers' cottages it is the Government, and they are making money out of the other matter also—the withholding of the annuities. It ought to be their duty to apply this money in some way towards these cottages. We have had complaints from the local authorities all over the country that they are losing money over the cottages. We have had complaints from the tenants that they are not able to pay their rents. But there is one party making money out of the transaction. That party is the Government. The amounts of the loans which were obtained years ago through the instrumentality of the British Government are not being paid back to the original lenders. These loans are now used as revenue by the Government. Even though they are being used as revenue, the people of this country are paying them in another way notwithstanding that they are not being paid direct to the British. But nothing is being done for the cottiers. I would like to say at the outset that anything that we on this side of the House can do to make the labourers the owners of their own cottages, we are quite prepared to do. We are quite prepared to co-operate with the Minister in that matter. Personally the Government has my sympathy in endeavouring to hammer out some sort of scheme that would be acceptable. It is a very difficult matter, and so I have always regarded it. I was interested in this problem as a member of the General Council of County Councils many years ago. I was interested in it at that time when schemes were put forward. I do not agree with the scheme in the Bill before the House. I do not regard it as anything like an acceptable Bill or a Bill that can be operated successfully. Although there has been a general clamour by the tenants of these cottages for ownership, that clamour was always accompanied by the feeling that it would mean a reduction in rents or a reduction at least in the annual or weekly outlay on the cottages. The Bill as drafted and the proposed scheme which the Minister has read out do not propose any such reduction. As a matter of fact it will mean an increase in charges to the labourers. Take my own County of Roscommon. I went to the trouble last evening of getting the figures, and they are illuminating. They are entirely in accord with the figures given by General Mulcahy the other evening with regard to the whole of the Free State. They do not in any way show that under the operations of this Bill there would be a lessening of the burdens on the cottiers. In fact, as Deputy Davin said, whatever lessening of the burden there is would be on the ratepayers. I do not know exactly whether that was the intention of the drafters of the Bill. I am sure it was not the intention of those who used this proposed Bill two years ago as an election cry throughout the country. They did not say that it would mean a reduction of the burden on the ratepayers; they said it would mean a reduction of the burden on the cottiers.

In Roscommon there are 567 cottages. The rental is £1,804, and, on the basis suggested by the Minister, a reduction of 25 per cent. would mean £451. That would bring the rental down to £1,353. Take the 567 cottages and I think the minimum we could allow, even though some of them would be very well constructed, would come to 30/- per annum for repairs. The repairs at that rate would come to £850. Add that amount to the reduced rental of £1,353, instead of the £1,804, and that would bring the outgoings of the labourers to £2,203. On the board of health side would be a loan repayment of £2,268. The 25 per cent. reduction put to the board of health side would mean £451. Insurance, collection and engineering would mean £350, and that would bring it to £3,069 as against the board of health previous outlay of £3,468. That is really typical, so far as I can see, of the whole country.

The scheme which is outlined by the Minister does not appear to confer benefits on anyone. The benefit it confers on local authorities is very doubtful. If this Bill is put into operation, and if local authorities in their present state of congestion of business have to draft schemes, varying types of schemes, that will entail a lot of time and expense, to my mind a lot of unnecessary expense. I think, first of all, that the Preamble of the Bill is entirely wrong. It sets out that it is an Act to make provision for the purchase by the tenants of cottages and plots. As a matter of fact it does not make any provision. It enables other people to make provision, but of itself it makes no provision. There is no use in boosting this measure as one which will leave over 42,000 people in the position of becoming owners of their cottages at great advantage to themselves. I am sure, even though we have a very wide definition of a labourer, that 50 per cent. of the occupants of labourers' cottages will not be able to purchase their dwellings.

There is a minority report which deals in one paragraph with a return of the tenants in the cottages in one collection district in County Dublin. It states:—

"The occupations of the tenants are as follows: 24 railway workers, 8 factory and mill workers, 3 engine drivers and boiler men, 2 cow-keepers (dairymen), 5 general labourers, 1 building labourer, 1 rent collector, 1 pensioner, 1 county council employee, 1 market gardener, 1 in the Army, and 1 whose employment is not stated. It will be seen that except for the market gardener there are now no land workers at all in the cottages in this particular district. Classifying these 49 tenants according to the weekly family income, the result is as follows:—Under £1 a week, none; £1 to £2, 5; £2 to £3, 23; £3 to £4, 7; £4 to £5, 6; £5 to £6, 1; £6 to £7, 3; £7 to £8, 1."

How many of those people would be eligible to purchase their cottages? There is no use pretending that we are passing legislation which is going to be advantageous to over 42,000 people. I am afraid that it is not going to be advantageous to anybody. Apart from its general effect upon cottiers, I will not say that the Bill has been loosely drafted, but to my mind it does not bear the imprint of something that is workable or that has been drafted with the care a measure of its sort deserves. The boards of health will have to draft schemes. As Deputy Davin pointed out, there is no reason why some central authority, let it be the Local Government Department or the Land Commission preferably, should not take over this business. You will have under the present proposals boards of health drafting schemes perhaps very loosely. According to the Bill, they have to advertise the schemes twice and they have to have copies lying about for everybody to inspect. After that the Minister will examine them and, if he makes any alternations, they have to be advertised again, and again finally advertised.

The question arises, how many of the tenants will purchase their cottages? What are we really offering the tenants? In my opinion we are not offering them any reduction. They will not have the right to sell their cottages, which is quite proper, until the period of repayment is over. That period will possibly be anything from 25 to 50 years. The position of the tenant will be that he has not the right to sell or dispose of the cottage in any way until the repayment period is finished. He cannot mortgage it. He is obliged to undertake the cost of repairing it. Where does the advantage arise as compared with his present position? He is paying a weekly rent and he cannot be removed while he does that. The cottage is his and the board of health is responsible for repairs. He can comple them to carry out the repairs. Unless we can confer some definite benefit upon the cottiers there is no use in putting any purchase scheme, such as is proposed, through.

I feel that this Bill is going to go the way of other Bills, such as the Slaughter of Animals Bill, the Bill affecting minimum prices, and so on. They all went by the board. We had levies on various things and they went by the board, too. As regards repairs, this Bill says that the local authorities will be obliged to carry out repairs. What will the repairs consist of? Will it mean inside as well as outside work? Recently we had a case—fortunately there are not very many of them—where a labourer refused to pay his rent and said his house was not in repair. He was asked for details of the disrepair and he requested that an inspector should go to see the house. The inspector went sooner than the occupant of the cottage expected and he found the man smashing up the floors with a pick.

Mr. Norton

Where was that?

Mr. Brennan

In Roscommon. Fortunately there is not very much of that, but if it is laid down in a Bill that the board of health will be responsible for repairs, there should be some safeguards provided. There ought to be set out the types of repairs for which they would be held responsible. Now we have a section here dealing with the consolidation of holdings, that is where the Land Commission will have the right to consolidate holdings. I think the thing was framed badly and ought to be considered in another light altogether. In 1927 legal provision was made, whereby the Land Commission could consolidate holdings under a section of the Act, and give compensation to the board of health for the houses. I think that was fair. In Roscommon were many cases of that kind and we endeavoured to get compensation for the owners—the board of health. It would enable us to build cottages in Roscommon, but we were estopped by some red tape or other. It was only equitable that the board of health should be compensated for these houses. We have, in our locality, the Land Commission dividing land and it costs £240 to put up a house. We have a provision, under Section 27, whereby the Land Commission can carry out the consolidation order for all holdings. There is a very roundabout kind of procedure under this consolidation order. The Land Commission can consolidate the cottage plot with the holding on the land they have given. Then instead of paying in bulk, in some shape or form, to the board of health, some sum of money for the cottages built, they undertake an equation of the annuity, so that we have the Land Commission continuing to pay to the board of health the yearly sum that the cottier would pay. I do not think that is a good arrangement between Government Departments. I think when the Land Commission comes in the board of health should get some kind of compensation that would help to build other cottages. Here we have a round-about method of a consolidating order, and then the Land Commission take responsibility for paying to the board of health the rent for the period the tenant should pay it. I do not think that is a good business, and I appeal to the Minister to look into it and try to have it altered. My own view is if we want a satisfactory basis for the sale of labourers' cottages we would have to get a valuation upon each cottage as it stands at present.

The Minister spoke of an equated loan period. I am in agreement with the Minister on that. I think any other method such as that suggested by the majority report would be manifestly unfair. We have cottages in Roscommon the loan on which is paid off completely. We have others built for over 20, 25 or 30 years. Some of them I know, that were built by good contractors, are much better value than the new cottages. In addition to that we have the question of locality. We have some cottages near towns, some out on the hillsides and some on poor land, and it is not fair to put the same valuation upon each, because that is what it means. As a matter of fact, when the first scheme, under the 1932 Act, was being operated, the board of health built cottages on vacant sites and some of them were in out-of-the-way places. It was difficult to get tenants for these. One of these is on our hands and has been advertised "umpteen" times, and we cannot get a tenant. That shows that locality means a whole lot, and that a cottage in one part of a county is of much more value than in another. If some scheme could be devised whereby the whole lot of the cottages would be deemed the basis of an estate of the board of health and valued separately by a valuer then you would know where you are. There would be equity as far as one tenant and another are concerned.

In endeavouring to make a scheme the Minister has my sympathy. It is a very difficult problem, but I do not think that this Bill is going to meet the circumstances of the case at all. I believe we have this because the Minister and his Party are endeavouring to redeem their pledges. This is an alleged redemption of an election promise, and the Minister gives the baby to somebody else to carry. The whole scheme is going to be vexatious and costly to the boards of health. It is going to cost no end of worry, and we will not get anything in the end. Tenants will be free to purchase or not, and without any relation to the locality the weekly outgoings of the cottiers will be increased rather than decreased. Their responsibilities will be increased and the accuring benefits are very hard to find. There may be some people who perhaps take the view that they want to be owners of their own cottages. We are all anxious to help them in that. The majority of the cottiers, if they see that they have got to pay more for the rather doubtful privilege of being declared the owners at the end of 30 or 35 years of their cottages, so that their sons or grandsons will have the right to sell the cottages at the end of that period, will not take advantage of this Bill at all. The fact that the boards of health themselves have to frame these schemes and submit them for sanction, and that they have to be looked into here in Dublin, and resubmitted back for alteration, will very likely mean very prolonged delay.

There is no doubt about that. Between those delays and the expenditure involved in advertising schemes which are not sanctioned at all, and in readvertising them, I do not think that the boards of health bill of costs is going to be lessened. I do not really see that any benefit is going to accrue to anybody as a result of this Bill. We should like certainly to support any Bill which confers a benefit on the cottiers, or on the working people of this country. Personally, I do not think this Bill is going to do it, and I should like if the Minister would really consider the weakness of the Bill, which lies in the fact that you are going to have boards of health all over the country adopting various types of schemes. The Minister himself, and his Party, ought to put their backs into this thing and, if they are going to have a scheme that will be acceptable to the tenants, let us have it from headquarters; let us see what it is. The Minister gives us an outline of a scheme which, if you bring it down to figures, is not conferring any benefit whatever on anybody. The benefits of the provisions of the Bill are pretty hard to find. If the Minister can show us anything which is going to confer benefits on the cottiers we are quite prepared to help him with this Bill, by way of amendments or otherwise, but, on the whole, I am afraid that the Bill is going to do no good to anybody. It will merely put expenses on the boards of health, and nobody is going to benefit by its provisions in the end.

Mr. Norton

I approach consideration of this Bill from the standpoint as to whether it is in the interests of the cottage tenants or not. My approach to the problem leads me to believe that any proposal which creates stability of ownership for agricultural labourers on reasonable terms is something which is in the interests of agricultural labourers. To the extent, therefore, that this Bill will provide stability of ownership of labourers' cottages for agricultural labourers, I am in favour of it, subject of course to reservations as to the terms upon which the cottages are to be sold to those labourers. I think the transfer of ownership of those cottages to the agricultural labourers—especially in the circumstances existing in this country with the deep ingrained tendency towards tenant proprietorship—has much to commend it from an economic and from a social point of view. I think the transfer of ownership to the tenants will do much to endow the tenants with a greater element of independence and economic stability than they enjoy to-day. I am one of those people who believe that the erection of labourers' cottages throughout the country under the Labourers Acts, and the inauguration of the scheme of direct labour on the roads, have done much more than any other pieces of legislation to endow the agricultural worker with the manhood and the dignity which, in the economic sphere, he formerly did not possess. The erection of labourers' cottages got him away from the dreadful evil of the tied house, with all that it meant to the agricultural labourer if he happened to lose his employment with a particular farmer or rancher. The scheme of direct labour on the roads helped to give him an alternative source of livelihood, which was then denied to him by conspiracy on the part of ranchers to deprive him even of that livelihood, if he appeared to distinguish himself as a person who sought better conditions for himself or his fellow workmen. I think that the transfer of ownership to the agricultural labourers will help forward that tendency and that movement. To that extent I think a Bill designed to enable that transfer to take place is something which has much to commend it to those who are anxious to promote the development of that dignity and that manhood amongst the agricultural labourers of the country.

Deputy Mulcahy on the last day delivered himself of a speech the philosophy of which I found considerable difficulty in discerning. Portions of the speech seemed to suggest that the agricultural labourers were being swindled. Another portion seemed to suggest that the ratepayers were being swindled, while yet another portion appeared to suggest that the taxpayers were being asked to bear a crippling burden. Another portion seemed to suggest that the whole scheme was devised in order to put new burdens on the backs of the agricultural labourers, though the Deputy indicated in the course of the speech that he had some considerable doubt as to whether the scheme of purchase would ever materialise through the machinery of this Bill. I am not so much concerned in this matter from the point of view of the burden which, according to Deputy Mulcahy, will be put upon the ratepayers or the taxpayers. I look at the claims of agricultural labourers from this special standpoint, that in this community, and in most other communities throughout the world, the agricultural labourers as a class are wretchedly treated from the standpoint of wages, and wretchedly treated from the standpoint of conditions under which they must toil. Invariably their standard of living is the lowest in the community, although probably they perform the most essential service for the community, namely, providing food on which the community may sustain itself. There is, and must always be, in this country, and I think in other countries where agriculture plays a predominant part in the communal life of the nation, special recognition of the claims of agricultural labourers. I think it is not unreasonable that we should carry that claim to such an extent as to demand for them from the State or from the community a special right to whatever it is possible for the State or the community to give them, having regard to the onerous conditions of toil which are imposed upon them.

In any approach to this Bill we must give careful consideration to the question as to whether it is possible for the agricultural labourers to become owners of their cottages, without the imposition through the machinery of this Bill of burdens which are too heavy for their backs to bear. Deputy Mulcahy pointed out on the last occasion on which this Bill was discussed that there was an enormous reduction in the rates of wages paid to agricultural labourers. I perfectly agree with Deputy Mulcahy that there has been an unprecedented reduction of agricultural wages, especially during the past few years. I do not want here to apportion responsibility for the cause of that reduction in wages, but I think Deputy Mulcahy's Party and Deputy Mulcahy's mentality are not wholly free from blame in the matter, nor do I think that the Executive Council are wholly free from blame in the matter because of their apparent reluctance to devise machinery which would ensure that the agricultural labourer could register a vote for a new Government, without being compelled to pay for registering his vote in a particular way through his own pocket and through the stomachs of his own children. The fact remains that agricultural wages have been substantially reduced in recent years, and we get a picture of the economic evil which flows from that by looking at the arrears of rent which have accrued in respect of labourers' cottages. I think the figure a few years ago was in the vicinity of £33,000; I think that the figure for this year is something in the vicinity of £53,000; so that looking at the rents of labourers' cottages from the standpoint of their reasonableness or otherwise, we find that the arrears of rents in respect of those cottages are growing rapidly. In my opinion it is not sheer cupidity on the part of the tenants which is responsible for the increase in the arrears. The true explanation probably lies in the fact that agricultural labourers, on their present low rates of wages, are finding it extremely difficult to pay the existing rents of labourers' cottages. When we consider this Bill we have got to ask ourselves whether the tenant is capable of continuing to assume the present burden in respect of rents.

I am afraid in existing circumstances, so long as agricultural labourers are so badly remunerated, that it is impossible to expect the agricultural labourer to meet the burden of rents on the present scale. If the Executive Council want this Bill to work on the basis of the agricultural labourer accepting his existing liabilities as rents for a liability as owner, I think they must do something to ensure that the agricultural labourer will be put in an economic position, through his wages and other social conditions, that will enable him to assume burdens of that kind. We talk in this House frequently about our anxiety to safeguard the agricultural industry. All Parties vie with each other in an effort to claim that they, and they only, are the sole custodians of the agricultural interests in this country, but I think it should be the task of every Party in the House to endeavour to do something to rescue the agricultural labourer, especially in rural areas far removed from towns, from the wretched conditions of living in which many of them are endeavouring to exist to-day. It is extraordinary that a country such as this which often vaunts its Christianity should permit to continue an exploitation of agricultural labourers that I doubt has any parallel in Europe to-day.

According to the Minister, the local authorities will be required to adopt as far as possible a model scheme with certain adjustments which would be made in respect to peculiarities in the matter of purchases and in the matter of loan periods. I notice that the Minister indicates that the tenants will be required to pay a terminable annuity of 75 per cent. of their existing rents for an assumed period of 65 years less the age of the cottage. At the end of the period over which the annuity will be spread the tenant will become the owner of the cottage. Until such time as the annuities are paid the tenants will be liable for the repair of the cottages, and henceforward they will also be liable for repairs to the cottages. So that what the Bill is going to do, according to the Minister's scheme, is to give the tenants a reduction of 25 per cent. in their existing rents during the period of the terminable annuity, and in return each tenant shall be responsible for the repair of the cottage. I think that portion of the finances of this Bill is unsound.

I do not think it is possible for the tenants to assume, and meet with anything like reasonable regularity, the liabilities which will devolve on them if they are required to pay 75 per cent. of their existing rents and to meet the whole burden of repairs in future. It may be said that the cottages will be put in repair by the board of health before they are sold to the tenants. We have got to remember that some of the cottages are 40 years old. Some are even 50 years old, I think, and the cost of repairing cottages from 40 to 50 years old will be an increasing one. The greater the cost, the greater the responsibility that will devolve upon the tenants. I think the Minister is making a fatal mistake in expecting that tenants who are now paying a weekly rent can continue to pay 75 per cent. of that rent in future and assume, completely unlaided, the responsibility for the repairs of the cottage. It may be done by certain types of tenants, but I think it is untrue to say, and fallacious to assume, that agricultural labourers generally can continue to pay a rent of 75 per cent. of the existing rent and at the same time bear the whole burden of repairs to the cottage. We have been shown by the Minister in statistics that the present rents are not sufficiently low to prevent arrears to the extent of £53,000 arising in respect to labourers' cottages. If we are going simply to transfer the same liability to the tenants under this purchase Bill, I venture to say that the arrears will continue to increase in many instances and that you will not, particularly by a purchase scheme, arrest the problem of increasing arrears, which in my opinion is due to the economic position in which many tenants of labourers' cottages find themselves.

I would suggest to the Minister that it has been shown by the arrears of rents that in many instances the existing rents are a burden on the tenants. It may be, of course, argued by the Minister and by those who may dispute that contention that the tenant is only paying a fraction of the normal economic cost in rent for his house. I can see that at once, but we have got to remember that the agricultural labourer has never received an adequate return in the form of money for the service he renders to the community. At all times there must be a special recognition of the fact that the agricultural labourer is quite unable to pay the economic rent of any house. It is little use to tell the agricultural labourer that he is getting his rent 25 or 20 per cent. lower than the economic cost of the house would justify, if he is not able to pay that proportion of the economic cost of the house.

I suggest to the Minister that the 75 per cent. annuity fixed in the Bill will impose on the tenants a burden which will prove too onerous for them and will only create new problems which will have to be faced by some other Executive Council at some future date, in the form of a demand for reduced annuities or, what I fear, a clamour for the unrestricted sale of the cottages before the annuities are terminated. If because of their inability to discharge their existing liabilities there is a demand for free sale before the annuity had been paid, I think a very serious evil would arise. The Minister should, I think, at this stage, before it is too late, consent to a much more substantial reduction in the present rent as a condition of purchasing the cottages. The Minister has urged against the plea for fixing the annuity on the basis of 50 per cent. of the present rent that there is no comparison between the position of the general farmers in this country in respect to the reductions which they have secured and the position of agricultural labourers. I suggest to the Minister also that there is no comparison in the economic stability of the two classes. After all, the tenant farmers, especially those who have been tenant farmers for a period, have much more stability, a much better financial standing, and in general their financial credit in the community is proportionately considerably above that of agricultural labourers.

It is, therefore, unfair to make a mere percentage comparison between agricultural labourers and tenant farmers, because their positions are entirely different. One man, at all events, is in the position that he has a secure homestead, and, possibly, some capital accumulated, as a result of operating on his land. In the case of the agricultural labourer, he is usually a penniless man, separated from the county home only by his ability to secure an occasional day's or week's work. Comparison, therefore, between tenant farmers, who have secured a 50 per cent. reduction in their annuities, and agricultural labourers is a comparison not devised in the interest either of equity or of the agricultural labourers. I suggest to the Minister that that is an unfair comparison to make.

I hope that the Minister will indicate in his reply that that figure of 75 per cent. of the existing rents, which apparently has been determined for the model scheme to be passed over to local authorities, was a percentage fixed in a rather arbitrary manner and that, on reconsideration, he recognises that the burden is one which it is not possible for agricultural labourers to bear. I think, however, that the idea of the transfer of ownership to the tenants is good nationally and economically, and is good from the point of view of the stability which it will confer upon the tenants. But the transfer ought not to be made on conditions which are too onerous for the tenants, and I think the imposition of an annuity of 75 per cent. of the present rent, plus liability for repairs, is a burden which the tenants of labourers' cottages are not likely to be able to bear except at the price of sacrificing very many necessaries of life.

Mr. Cosgrave

I cannot join in the Minister's appreciation of the work of the commission except with regard to one member of it, and that is the man who signs the minority report, Mr. John Collins, who, I would say, is the only man who has exhibited any honesty in dealing with this question. We can consider this apart from politics, although it is very hard to do it having regard to the history of the matter. Looking at the facts, they are very simple. You will be shocked, Sir, to know that many things can be brought into relevancy here; for example, the economic war, Queen Victoria, King Edward, all are in order on this question. Queen Victoria was not a very popular queen in this country. Nevertheless, she did more by signing the first Labourers' Act than the Minister proposes to do in this Bill.

Mr. Norton

Could she have refused?

Mr. Cosgrave

That is a question you will probably have to put to Mr. Berridale Keith or some other authority on that subject. I am not an authority on constitutional law. Very grave consideration was apparently given some 53 years ago to the needs of agricultural labourers in this country, and the rents then fixed for cottages had relation to the wages that the labourers earned at that time. Whatever may be said about their capacity to pay 1/2 or 1/3 per week in 1883, and whatever criticism may be offered about the wages they then had, nobody will contest the fact that the wage an agricultural labourer had in 1883 was capable of purchasing probably double the quantity of goods which the same money would be capable of purchasing to-day.

If the measure then of the beneficence, if you might so call it, of the British House of Commons was such that it was to consider the needs of the labourers of that period in that particular setting, our problem here to-day would appear to be very much easier. The Minister asked the commission to report on it. Two members of that commission have already received their rewards. One is on the Bench and the other is a lay commissioner of the Land Commission. Neither of them has added much to the solution of the problem. The only person who appears to have addressed himself with any sincerity and any business aptitude to the solution of the question is the signatory of the minority report.

Some criticism has been directed towards the cost that has fallen upon local authorities over a period of years for the administration of the Labourers Acts. The sum is somewhere about £60,000 annually in respect of the deficit in connection with loan charges, and £84,000 under other headings; approximately, in all, £140,000. Naturally, financiers and others direct themselves to seeing what can be deducted from that particular outgoing. We had a measure introduced this evening which this year will take from the pockets of the ratepayers a sum of £700,000, and there was no great outcry against its introduction.

Mr. Morrissey

It will take a lot from the tenants of the cottages also.

Mr. Cosgrave

So far as that particular measure is concerned, its imposition on the ratepayers will render them less able to meet whatever deficiencies arise in connection with the administration of the Labourers Acts. Every mounting cost that falls upon local authorities makes them still less able to meet that. The cottagers themselves will probably find that 1d., 2d. or 3d. a week will have to be met by them in respect of that particular item. The commission had a hard task which it avoided, and the Minister had a problem to solve which I am afraid he has avoided. It is left now to the boards of health to find a solution to this question. But the boards of health are not even allowed a free hand. When, some 53 years ago, a start was made in providing labourers' cottages for people in this country there was, first of all, the absolute need for the provision of these cottages. Does that need exist to-day? Obviously it does. The major responsibility that would fall upon the Minister in that connection would be to ensure that in five, ten or fifteen years time those cottages will be still there available for use by people engaged in agricultural labour.

The system put forward in the Bill for dealing with the repairs of these cottages is bad on its face and impossible of carrying out. Apparently, that fact, at any rate, was present to the mind of the signatory to the minority report. How is it possible for a man receiving anything from 7/- to 20/- per week to repair his cottage? Let us assume that he is met with a leaking chimney, slates off, doors to be repaired, or something of that sort; that he would only have to meet a cost of £3 once every three years. But he may be faced with a big expenditure at a given moment. A man with a wage of £1 a week may be faced with a bill for £3 any moment. How can he possibly meet that charge— that is to face up and pay a ridiculous expenditure to put the cottage in repair? Having regard to the income the person has it is a hardship to find he is going to be saddled with the responsibility of keeping the cottage repaired. From the figures mentioned in the report, the costs are not prohibitive. The cost of repairs to similar dwellings in the City of Dublin was greater in 1914 than the cost that is submitted here in respect of one of these cottages. At any rate, whatever way it is taken it is approximately £1 5s. per cottage per year. If it could be arranged that the man were to pay 6d. a week and that he would thus relieve himself of the burden of paying £1 5s. or £1 6s. a year it would be a good bargain. According to what we heard as to the finance of this scheme that would mean that he would have to pay 3d. a week more than he is paying at present. That is not fair to this particular class which, according to the report —examining it up and down—had no spokesman and had no person on its behalf capable of putting forward its case. It is not because of that that an unfairness or an injustice should be done to them. Looking at the question on the larger issue that this particular provision of some 42,000 cottages had to be undertaken by providing the money at easier rates of interest than are ever likely to be had again, it is a dangerous policy to run the risk of allowing the deterioration of these cottages to take place and finding ourselves in five, ten, or 15 years time faced with an outlay for reconstruction or reconditioning that would far exceed any cost such as would be shouldered by the local authority in bearing the burden at the present moment.

I think the Minister ought seriously to consider leaving on the local authorities still the responsibilities of bearing the cost of repairing those cottages. They are a national asset. They are a national necessity and we are not solving the question by simply putting upon the shoulders of those least able to bear it the cost of keeping these cottages in repair. Remember while the report seems to exhibit a certain delicacy in the matter of the present system—going so far in one particular case as to say that the present system of repairing cottages, with the inspection that takes place and the invasion of those houses on the part of the officials of the local authorities, is demoralising —we have here a policy which at the same time makes provision for the inspection of the houses by an inspector, who if satisfied that the cottage has not been properly repaired serves notice on the occupier and the occupier having got notice can refer the matter to the Minister and if the Minister is satisfied that repairs must be effected, then, on another notice being served on the occupier and not being attended to by him, the local authority comes along, does the work and serves notice on the occupier or the owner or purchaser of the cottage for the amount of the bill. If the bill is not met the local authority can go into court and get possession of the cottage, because under a subsequent section it transpires that the non-fulfilment of that condition is non-fulfilment of a statutory condition.

Now these labourers who number 42,000 throughout the country, or their fathers or grandfathers, have been witnesses of a great revolution in the occupation and ownership of land, and they know that about the first claim that was made in respect of a person owning land was fair rent, fixity of tenure and free sale. These three things were not accomplished without some expenditure of money. The State's contribution towards that particular operation— using the State now in the sense of the present State and its predecessor —was approximately £1,000,000 a year. It has been operated by either the State or its predecessor. This cost appears to us to be colossal. This is only about one-eighth of that sum.

One of the reasons for the extension of the Labourers Acts activities during the last thirty years was this transfer of ownership from the landlord to the tenant. By reason of that transfer and by borrowing very large sums of money this was achieved. This money had to be secured and one of the securities for the repayment of it was to ensure that a labour market would be there. One of the things adopted for the purpose of having a labour market there was further to extend the building of cottages. It certainly is a monument to those who took part in the Irish national movement immediately before our time. The work that was done in getting labourers' cottages built in that period of 40 or 50 years was a great achievement. It is our duty now to ensure that these cottages are going to be maintained for the class for whom they were intended. They will not be maintained for that class unless the local authority undertakes the duty which it has undertaken since the first cottages were built; and that is the primary responsibility for keeping them in repair. The rates under that particular heading are not in a worse position now than in the past.

The solution of this question ought not be with a view to having the responsibility on the rates reduced. That is conferring a benefit on those who are not parties to this transaction. The parties to this transaction are the labourers in occupation of the cottages and the Government. The Government's solution ought not be to make it still more difficult for the labourers to live in this country.

I have before me the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Sale of the Cottages and Plots, and, taking this report as it was written, during the last few years, Mr. Collins points out, after giving details of the wages paid in the various counties: "The inference from this and other evidence of similar tenor is that wages have fallen since the original figures were compiled last year." The report is dated April, 1933. Under these circumstances is it not manifestly unjust to place any further burden upon the occupiers of cottages and then to label that burden with terms of purchase? Having dealt with that aspect, let us look at the finance of it. According to this report, the annuities in respect of these cottages falling to be paid to the Irish Land Commission in respect of loans advanced for the purposes of Labourers Acts were £123,546. The sum to be paid annually in respect of that is £123,546. The second item on page 15 of the report is the payment to Commissioners of Public Works, £112,340. If I am not very much mistaken, both of these items are in dispute. The Government, which is collecting that money from the local authorities, is not discharging it. Further on in the same page the receipts were, 36 per cent. of Irish Land Commission annuities, £44,388, and an Exchequer contribution of approximately £30,000, the total of the two being £73,500. That amount was a liability of this State up to 1932, and from the year 1932 this State has escaped that particular liability. Up to 1932, while the State got from the local authorities the two sums I have already mentioned of £123,000 and £112,000, they got only transitory possession, not permanent possession. They simply entered into control of it for a while and passed it on to the person who claimed to have lent it. That item is in dispute, but it falls now regularly into the Treasury and is an advantage.

We talk about making tenants pay an annuity towards amortising a debt, but there is no debt to amortise. That fact escaped the attention of the Commission that the Minister thanked for their labours. The only contribution they could offer in connection with the whole business is at least to give them what the farmers have got. This much might be said in respect of the farmers' side of it, that of the £4,000,000 collected to discharge annuities at least £1,200,000 had to be earmarked for payment of the bond interest under the 1923 Act. But there is no bond interest in respect of those two sums, so what we are invited to do here is to pass a scheme which will ensure that the labourers will contribute, not towards the payment of a debt, because it is not owed, but to the revenue of the State, three-quarters of £230,000. So far as the Ministry are concerned, they have escaped a liability of £73,000 and they enter into possession of £230,000. I want to do them justice—I am not quite right. They have escaped a liability of £73,000, and, while they would have had to discharge £267,000, they are escaping that.

The problem left for us is to see how everybody can get something out of this. The Government is going to get whatever is to be got in respect of the payment of the annuity; the local authorities are to be relieved of the cost of keeping the cottages in repair, and the tenant can have what is left after those two items have been discharged. It is not fair; it is not what they offered to them; it is not what they were led to expect they were going to get. It is particularly unfair, having regard to this, that when the promises were made to them that they were to become owners of their cottages they had not got to contribute so much in taxation as they had to contribute in the last two or three years. Tea, sugar, flour, practically every item going into the house of a labourer is taxed. Assuming for the moment that he requires to mend a window-sill or repair a roof, he will pay 5/- a ton on any cement he has to buy. He did not have to pay that two or three years ago.

General Mulcahy

He will have to pay more for glass and slates.

Mr. Cosgrave

Practically every item in respect of the repair of his cottage is going to cost the labourer more— and that to a man whose wages have fallen during the last two or three years. It is not a Bill of which the Government should be proud. It is a Bill which, at any rate in so far as responsibility for repairs is concerned, ought to be amended. If the conditions as they now exist are going to last, very good, postpone consideration of this measure. I am quite certain, from the views that have been expressed by Deputies, that sooner or later there will be a purchase scheme in respect of those cottages. We are satisfied that they ought to be in possession of them, but we are equally satisfied that they ought not to be put in possession of them at a cost which will make possession much more expensive to them than what they have had during the last 20, 30 or 50 years.

Mr. T.J. Murphy

Like all Deputies who have spoken in connection with this measure, I have very considerable misgivings about its value. When the Commission deliberated on this question I submitted certain views for consideration. Nothing that I have heard since then, and nothing that this Bill contains, enables me to alter the views I expressed then. Stripped of a whole lot of generalities, the main facts as they appear from the Bill are that the tenant gets a reduction of 3d. or 4d. in the week and in return he has to bear the cost of repairs. To my mind that is a very bad bargain for the tenant. At the present time new houses are being erected by local authorities on the basis of the provision of a sum of 30/- a year for repairs. I think that is a reasonable estimate. When one remembers that a large number of labourers' cottages were built 30 or 40 years ago, I think one can easily realise that the amount necessitated by repairs will be considerably higher than 30/-. One has also to take into account the fact that hundreds of cottages were very badly built and that there was a whole lot of mismanagement and corruption associated with their erection, as we in Cork County have very good reason to know. Over a period of years they were very badly repaired, if the word repair could be properly used at all. At the present time there are houses that do not lend themselves to repair at a reasonable figure.

I cannot see that the labourers who occupy the cottages are likely to get any benefit out of the proposed bargain. I doubt very much if the knowledge that at some period in the future they are going to own their houses, or that members of their families are going to own the houses, will be any adequate compensation for the burdens they will have to bear as a result of this scheme. The agitation for the sale of labourers' cottages goes back for some years. If I mistake not it arose, in the first instance, from certain boards of health. And it arose because they did not disguise the reason for the demand, which was that the cottage represented a growing liability on the boards of health, and that they were anxious to get rid of that liability. I am afraid the position now is, that, to a very considerable extent, the liability is going to be transferred to the tenants. I agree that a large number of tenants in this country believed that it was possible to work out a scheme of purchase that would be of advantage to them. I doubt very much if any of them will regard schemes that may be outlined by the boards of health as a result of this measure as conferring the advantage they wanted. It is no exaggeration to say that at the present time labourers in labourers' cottages pay, in rent and rates, a sum that approximates very closely to what is paid in rent and rates by the occupier of a 20 acre farm. I have gone into the figures in Cork, and I find that that is a reasonably accurate statement.

I suggest to the Minister that the approach to this question should be along lines of having the present rents halved, in the same way as the annuities were halved, for the tenants, and that as small tenant owners have been relieved of responsibility for rates the labourers should also be relieved. After having made such changes, I would leave the cottages in the hands of the board of health and I would persuade the tenants—and I do not think they would require much persuasion— that they would then have got a reasonable bargain, and a better effort to level up things, than they could possibly get under this scheme. My hope is that the bulk of the labourers through the country will not avail of this measure. I certainly hope many of them will examine into the position very carefully, and cautiously, before they commit themselves to the acceptance of the scheme.

In saying that, I do not want to throw doubts, in any way, upon what I know is the desire of the Minister and his Department to assist the labourers. It was a very difficult situation to handle. I agree there is something to be said in favour of the natural and very proper point of view that people are desirous of owning their houses.

The circumstances under which the Labourers Acts originally were initiated reflect, as has already been stated, great credit upon the older generation of our representatives. They were, as a result of their efforts, enabled to give to this country a very valuable property and social asset in the labourers' cottages erected. I think it is our duty very jealously to guard the interests of the people who tenant these cottages at the present time, and to make sure that in dealing with the matter in this way we do not take action that might very easily give us, in a short period of years, again a problem not perhaps so difficult as that we are dealing with to-day but still one of very considerable dimensions. The tenants in many cases will not be able to bear the cost of repairs under this Bill. Assuming a serious gale or storm, and that abnormal damage was done to the cottages, very few tenants could bear the expense of effecting the necessary repairs. While the boards of health have power to come in and to do the work at the tenants' expense, it seems to me very unlikely that even with legal pressure the tenants can be expected to meet such expenses themselves. I think it right that this point of view, not shared by many cottage tenants. and not shared by members of my own Party, in many parts of the country, should be expressed; because I feel whatever views we have should be advanced honestly, having regard to the fact that all sections of people are interested in the welfare of the labourers of the country. Whatever measures are proposed in regard to their position ought to have the examination of all Parties and ought to receive the co-operation of all Parties in this House.

I trust the Minister, within the limits of the scheme in this Bill, will examine into the points raised and see whether it is not possible, within the scheme, to make, at least, some changes that will ease the burden that will fall on the tenants if they avail of this scheme. We should proceed very cautiously before giving the imprimatur of this House to a measure that instead of easing the difficulty of the labourers at present might add very considerably to them in the future.

Mr. Keyes

I am prepared to admit that there are not very considerable advantages in the proposals of the Bill itself. It is, from a sentimental point of view, the desire of labourers to become the owners of their own homes. That has not arisen in any recent period but has extended back for years. I am not prepared to admit that an agricultural labourer, given a fair and square deal, has not as much patriotism and intelligence in the care and upkeep of his home and carrying out the necessary repairs as is to be found displayed in the homes of farmers or any other section of the community. I can say, from knowledge of my own district, that 99 per cent. of the cottiers in that district have been clamouring for 25 years for a cottage purchase scheme. I do not think they will be very enthusiastic at the particular proposals in this Bill. The point has been stressed by several speakers that provision for repairs is not adequate. The sum of 25 per cent. is the amount set aside which should mean that about 15/- is being set aside for repairs. Any good landlord or public authority would set down £2 in urban, and 30/- in rural districts as against the repair of property which he has erected. It has been pointed out that these are not new cottages but rather that they are very old cottages. Some of us are afraid that the repairs will not be finally carried out by the tenants. We cannot forget that they have not been carried out in many counties for years past. The Local Government Department have shown great laxity in allowing boards of health to permit cottages to get into disrepair. I am glad to see in this Bill there are powers to secure that the new tenants will be inspected, to see that repairs are carried out, and that if they are not done adequately in the opinion of the inspectors the occupiers will be compelled to do them properly.

We regret that the board did not take action of that kind long before now, and the problem of repairs would not be as glaring as it is at the moment. I can speak of a couple of counties, and the condition of the houses there is deplorable. One of the things which are worrying me about the manner in which this Bill will operate is that the full weight of responsibility in preparing their scheme is cast on the boards of health. We know that some of those boards of health have been unable to raise the wind to do the necessary repairs to keep the rain from coming in. Some of the roofs have the rain pouring through for the past two or three years, and nobody from the local authorities has come to repair them. Where are they going to get the money to put the houses into a proper and reasonably habitable condition to conform with the scheme of the Minister? The central authority hands over to the local authorities the complete doing of something which I believe should be on a national basis. The cottage tenants have a right to expect that a measure which has been so long sought for would get not alone the benediction of the Government, but the active co-operation of the Government, and of the central funds as far as necessary in making the scheme a success, and giving them something which would be a real boon. I have a great fear that so much is vested in the local authorities that you will have a piecemeal sort of cottage purchase; that there will be lack of finance there; that some people will have a reasonably decent scheme carried through, while in other places the Act will not apply at all. We will not know exactly where we are if there is not something like definite co-operation from headquarters. It was suggested by Deputy Norton that a model scheme should be set down by the Minister for the guidance of local authorities. I think something of that kind should be done, because otherwise madcap schemes will be produced, and this thing will hang on for years before cottage purchase is an accomplished fact.

Many speakers have stressed the claim of cottage tenants to participate in the 50 per cent. remission. On the passage of the Land Bill through this House, I drew attention to that matter on behalf of the cottage tenants. The Minister for Defence—who was in charge of the Bill—and the Attorney-General stated that it was an inappropriate time to discuss that question, and that it could be much more usefully discussed when the Labourers Bill was being introduced. I regret to see that the 50 per cent. remission has not been given effect to in this Bill. I think a strong case can be made for it. The matter has been argued from every side of the House, and I do not want to again belabour the point. In view of the fact that they are taking over responsibility for the repairs, in view of the fact that their moneys are being retained in the same suspense account as the land annuities, and in view of the fact that the farmers, who are alleged to be in the front-line trenches in the economic war, got the 50 per cent. remission, I think we can reasonably urge that it should be given to the agricultural labourers, who are in the second-line trenches and are not very far behind. In view of the long period which has elapsed since it was given to the farmers, I think nobody can say that the labourers are not entitled to have this 50 per cent. remission given to them. If that is given to them it will be a message of goodwill from the Government, and I believe that the labourers will respond to any action of that kind. It will be found that they are as competent and patriotic in regard to keeping their homes as any other section of the community. I have no fear that there will be any abuses on the part of the labourers on having their homes transferred to them. I welcome the principle of this Bill, and I hope the Minister will take the necessary steps to make it sufficiently attractive to warrant the long fight which has been waged by the labourers for this right to own their own homes.

Mr. Morrissey

One can understand the rather weak-kneed support—if I can call it support—which the Labour Party has offered to this Bill. Of course they do not for a moment believe that it is a purchase Bill. They do not believe for a moment that it is anything at all like what the cottage tenants of this country were led to expect by the promises of the present Government. Not one of them believes for a moment that it is going to confer any benefit whatever upon the cottage tenants of the country. They do not believe that it is going to confer ownership on the tenants of the cottages, because there is nothing in the Bill which confers complete ownership upon those tenants at any period; it would be only nominal ownership. I venture to suggest to the House that at the end of 35 years there will be left in the country very few of the cottages which are 30 years built. Very few of them will be left standing, or fit to be occupied by human beings, if this impossible section of putting the onus for repairs upon the tenants is going to be insisted upon. I suggest that there is no member of the Labour Party who would dream of accepting that particular measure on behalf of the tenants from any other Government but the present Government. I want to suggest further that if that particular measure were put forward by any Government other than the present Government, and in present circumstances, as a measure to meet the claims of the cottage tenants of this country, it would be denounced very roundly, and very properly denounced, by the members of the Labour Party. The average rent of cottages in this country is 1/2 per week. What have the tenants been offered? A very bad bargain, I think Deputy Murphy very properly described it—a reduction of 3½d. per week over a period of 35 years, or 25 years where the cottages are 40 years built. They are taking on a liability which may amount, quite possibly, to £5 in a year. They are taking on a liability which is bound to be an increasing one. Remember, those repairs are not to be carried out when the tenant himself thinks that it is necessary to have his house repaired, or to the extent which he thinks is necessary; those repairs will have to be carried out at the command of the engineer to the county board of health, and as often as he requires them to be carried out.

If cottages which are 40 years built—many of them built under the circumstances described by Deputy Murphy—are to be kept in proper repair, the cost of repairs will, I submit, amount to considerably more than the rent itself. We heard a good deal of talk about the arrears of cottage rents, and it is a serious matter when you consider that the arrears average nearly 22 weeks per cottage. In other words, of the 43,000 cottages in the country the rent of every cottage is nearly 22 weeks in arrear. There is a reason for it. Deputy Norton did not face up to the reason. The Deputy said it was an indication of the low wages which the occupiers of labourers' cottages were getting. It is, and it is an indication of the fact that many thousands of them are getting no wages at all, because they have no work. The Deputy said, and quite properly said, that the Government should take steps to put the industry in a position to pay good wages. I am glad he put it that way. I am glad he said that the industry itself should be put in a position to pay wages which will enable the tenants to meet their existing rents, and to bear the new burdens to be placed on them by this Bill. The Deputy could have gone further, and stated that as a result of the activities of this present Government, very often helped by himself, even during the last 12 months, burdens have been placed upon the cottage tenants of this country, in common with all other workers, amounting to three times the rents of their cottages per week. Is the Deputy aware of the fact—I am sure he is—that cottage tenants in common with others are compelled to pay 8d. more per stone for flour than 12 months ago? The Deputy can make up his own mind as to the number of stones of flour required by the average-sized family in the week and the number of extra eightpences that have to be paid. Out of his greatly reduced wages the cottager has to pay 4d. per lb. more for his butter, while the price of tea, sugar, tobacco and everything else has increased accordingly. Whatever his wages were worth 12 months ago—8/-, 10/- or 12/- — they are worth considerably less to-day. He is in a much worse position to-day than he was 12 months ago.

If I could get any support for the proposition I would suggest that the Bill should be withdrawn to give the Minister another opportunity of framing a Bill, of facing up to his responsibility and of putting a scheme in the Bill which is not in this Bill. There is nothing here but a frame. There is nothing inside it. The Bill does not tell us the amount of the purchase money or the number of years over which it is spread. We got that from the Minister's speech. The Dáil is supposed to be legislating a scheme for the purchase of cottages but it is doing nothing of the sort. It is going to give the Minister and his officials power to frame a scheme and to give it the force of law. The work which should be done in this House is being delegated to the Minister and his officials. Unfortunately I was not present in the House when the Minister introduced the Bill on the Second Stage but I read his speech very carefully. I cannot see in that speech, or from any other point of view, any sound reason why we should have 27 different schemes— as many schemes as there are boards of health. It seems to be ridiculous that the Government should treat the matter in that manner. If this is to be the end of the claim of cottage tenants to be made owners of their own homes, they would be considerably better off with a reduction in their present rents, provided they got some guarantee of continuity of tenure.

I do not want to go into the details on this stage. We can do that on the Committee Stage but let me take this one point. The boards of health are supposed to hand over the cottage in good repair and in fair sanitary condition. I take it that the tenants in every case, in the 43,000 cases, will apply to the boards of health for certain repairs to be carried out before the cottages are handed over. If the board of health refuses to carry out such repairs, the tenant may appeal to the Minister and the Minister will investigate the complaint. Has anybody in this House any idea of how long that is going to defer the handing over of the cottages? Does not everybody know that every tenant before his cottage leaves the hands of the board of health, will see as far as he can, that as much money as he can squeeze out of the board of health through their engineer will be spent on the cottage? Does not every member of the House, especially those who are members of public bodies, know quite well that there will be thousands of appeals to the Minister. And we know how repidly inspections are made, investigations carried out and reports made to the Minister. It seems to me that some of the houses will be without roofs or windows before the Local Government Department has completely finished dealing with the appeals.

The question of repairs has been aggravated. We have some idea of what it costs boards of health to repair cottages. We must remember that the materials which may be required for these repairs have increased in cost, very substantially increased, owing to the activities of the Government. I do not think I would be exaggerating if I said that the materials required for house building or house repairs cost 40 per cent. more to-day than they cost two years ago. We know that glass, putty, down-pipes, everything from the roof to the foundation, was taxed particularly in the last Budget. We know that a tax of 5/- per ton has been put on cement. That is not a protective tariff. It is a purely revenue duty. It is at this period that we are told the Government are conferring a benefit on the tenants. I do not believe that the Minister himself is satisfied, because he has personal experience of the matter, that the repairs will not cost the tenants considerably more than the 3½d. per week handed back out of the rent. The Minister knows as well as any member of the House that they will cost considerably more. He knows particularly that as the houses get older, it will cost all the more to keep them watertight.

This Bill in my opinion is merely an attempt to fool the cottagers of this country. Apparently at the moment they have nobody speaking with authority on their behalf to make their case. They were not always so. It is a pity that the voices which were available for them, which were raised before and which forced the Government to set up the Commission, are not as free to-day to point out to the cottage tenants the type of Bill this is. It is the poorest attempt at legislation that I have ever seen in this House or that anybody else has ever seen and I hope that if the Minister is going to persist with the Bill, as he apparently is, he will be in a more generous frame of mind when the Bill is going through Committee.

Mr. Corish

As far as Deputy Morrissey's remarks are concerned, I have no hesitation in telling the cottage tenants that in my view the acceptance of this Bill will place them in a far worse position than they have been in up to now. It is a great pity, in my opinion, that the Minister instead of presenting an empty shell, as this Bill is, to the House, did not put forward some kind of scheme as a model which county boards of health could act upon. The present position is unsatisfactory inasmuch as boards of health have themselves to formulate schemes in their respective areas. This must necessarily mean a good deal of delay because I think it will be admitted that you may expect that different county boards of health will present different schemes. The result will be chaos in the Local Government Department. The Minister will find it very difficult to arrive at a decision as to which scheme is the best one. In a matter of this kind where house building is financed nationally, as cottages have been, one would have expected that the Minister would have himself made a contribution to the solution of this great problem. I think we may say that the desire of cottagers in the country to acquire possession of their own cottages is very commendable but I think that the cottagers themselves expected to get a great deal more than is contained in this Bill. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that, in my opinion, the man who purchases under this Bill will be infinitely worse off than he is at present.

If we take the rent of a cottage as being 1/- per week, 25 per cent. reduction will bring it down to 9d. per week. A great number of cottages, by reason of the fact that they have not been repaired as they should have been in recent years, are in a wretched state of repair. Even though it is mandatory upon boards of health to put these cottages into a state of repair before they are handed over to the tenants, it will not be very long before the older cottages require repairs again and, after that, annual repairs.

In their calculation, in order to arrive at a rent for recently built houses, the Department accepted a figure of 1 per cent. as being the amount that should be put into a scheme to carry out repairs. That 1 per cent. goes into the scheme and is related to new cottages or houses. We may assume that a labourer's cottage, even the oldest of them, would be worth about £100 to-day. If that be the accepted figure and we take that at 1 per cent., it means that at least £1 would be required for the repair of a cottage every year. The reduction in rent, if we take the rent at 1/- per week, will be 13/- per year. So that, even at the lowest calculation, a tenant will at least be at a loss of 7/- a year. I suggest to the Minister in all seriousness that that is going to make the tenant infinitely worse off than he is under present conditions. I suggest, as Deputy Cosgrave has suggested, that somebody should be made liable for the repairs other than the tenants.

The Government at present are collecting annuities on foot of loans advanced for the building of labourers' cottages in the years gone by. The tenant farmer has been relieved to the extent of 50 per cent. of his annuity and I cannot see why the agricultural labourer, who is in a worse position than the farmer, no matter what anybody may say, should not be at least entitled to the same facilities as the farmer. I think the Minister ought to approach it from that point of view. If the purchase scheme is put into operation, the Minister will still receive the same amount of money on foot of loans from the local authorities that he is now receiving. Any deficiency will have to be made up by the local authorities. Here, again, I submit to the Minister that the local authorities are already burdened with taxation in endeavouring to do certain things which are necessary in their areas, such as sanitation, the provision of waterworks and things of that kind. Then, on the houses which they are at present erecting, they pay a subsidy, along with the subsidy they receive from the Government, in order to let the houses at less than their economic value and at a rent which they consider the tenants are able to pay.

In view of all these things, I think it would be a very wise thing for the Minister to make available a certain amount of the money which he is collecting and which is not being paid at present to the people on the other side. A certain amount of that money should be made available, at any rate, in order that the cottages might be kept in a decent state of repair. I also suggest to the Minister that, at least, the amount which the tenant will be called upon to pay should be 50 per cent. of the present rent. Under existing circumstances, I think that that is all they can afford to pay. I believe that if the county boards of health were to submit a scheme of that kind would be acceptable to the tenants. As far as I know, the tenants are very desirous of becoming the owners of their own dwellings.

The repairs to cottages, for the purposes of the purchase scheme, will present a problem of considerable magnitude to county boards of health. They will have to find a great deal of money in the very near future to enable them to carry out the necessary repairs. There, again, the local ratepayers will be mulcted. I suggest that that is very unfair, in view of the fact that moneys are being collected from tenants of the cottages by the county boards of health and forwarded to the Government, and that these moneys are not at present sent where they were intended in the first instance.

I hope the Minister will be amenable to reason in these matters when the different sections are being considered in Committee; that he will take into consideration the points put before him and endeavour to send the Bill out of this House in a form more acceptable to the tenants than it is at present. I have consulted a great number of cottage tenants since this Bill was printed, and I may say that, even though they are desirous of taking over the cottages, they are not at all enamoured of the Minister's scheme. As far as I can, I will advocate that it will not be taken advantage of as it stands at present.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There has been a good deal of discussion about this measure, a number of the speakers entering into detail. Some of the Deputies who spoke were honest and above-board and some of them were not. Some of the discussion was straightforwardly playing Party politics and some of it rather insidiously playing Party politics. But I think the most dishonest statement that was made in the debate was that by Deputy Mulcahy, who in opening his speech described this scheme as a Fianna Fáil swindle. I think the word "dishonest" is right there, because I take it for granted that Deputy Mulcahy knows the meaning of the word "swindle" when he uses it. I think he knows the meaning of the word. If he does not know the meaning of the word there is an excuse for him. If he does know it, then I would say that that statement was pure malice and purely dishonest, because whatever may be said about the scheme there is nothing dishonest about it. There is nothing in it that has not been above-board. If there is any attempt to hide anything it would certainly have been brought out in this House. The Bill sets forth the conditions under which this House is asked to pass a measure to enable the tenants of cottages to become the eventual owners of their cottages and plots. The details are given of all the figures connected with the Labourers Acts, the cost of erecting the cottages and the proposals as to how these cottages generally are to be offered to the tenants for purchase. All these are set forth, and the scheme is outlined in detail.

The Bill is in the main the putting into operation of the recommendations that were sent to the Government from the Commission of Inquiry into the Cottages and Plots. That is the Commission that was set up a couple of years ago to consider the question of the advisability of a scheme of this kind. I say, therefore, that the term "swindle" applied by Deputy Mulcahy to the scheme is either dishonest or malicious, and he can have his choice of the two. Deputy Morrissey did not use the same sort of language. He probably knows the meaning of the word "swindle" better than Deputy Mulcahy does, or else he is not so malicious. But he did use the expression that this was an attempt to fool the tenants. That is all right if the tenants are liable to be fooled. But all sides here, including Deputy Morrissey, realise that the tenants are as wide awake as any other class here. They know the value of a £ and a penny.

Mr. Morrissey

Perhaps the Minister does not think they are wide awake. Perhaps he does not know them rightly.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Perhaps not as well as Deputy Morrissey. I am not quite as close to them, but I think I know their mentality, and I do not think they are likely to be fooled by any measure that would be discussed as fully as this is to be discussed here. It will be discussed at the various public boards and it will be debated at great length before it is adopted. But the labourers are not likely to be fooled, whatever else may happen with regard to the operations of this Bill when it becomes an Act. I think in principle it is a right and proper thing to bring in a Bill like this for the cottage tenant householders of this country, the occupiers of the cottages and plots of land. It is a right and proper thing that they should be offered on the best terms that we can afford an opportunity to become the owners of their own houses. The philosophy underlying that is one that this House should adopt. It is good Christian and Catholic philosophy, and it has the strongest possible recommendation from the highest Catholic authority behind it. The more householders we have in the country, the more widely property is owned, as Deputy Norton said this evening, the more stability we will have in the country.

That is the philosophy I had in mind when first I asked the Commission to report, and that was the philosophy I had later on when bringing this Bill before the House. A Bill of the kind is bound to get a good deal of criticism, especially in these times. It is good policy to play up to the agricultural labourer. It is very good politics, and I was amazed to hear the crocodile tears of Deputy Morrissey about the agricultural labourers. However, I was glad to hear the Deputy's voice. We have not seen his burly form nor heard his voice now in the House for some time. It is a good job to hear his voice, even though we do hear the crocodile tears too.

Mr. MacDermot

How does the Minister manage to "hear" a tear?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I heard his voice.

Mr. MacDermot

The Minister said he heard his tears.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is something more difficult, I admit, but one could hear them falling and hopping off the benches. This Bill is not a perfect one. It would be a hardy Minister who would allege it is. Even I, and I have a fairly tough political skin, would not claim perfection for any measure that I would bring in here—I would not claim that it could not be amended. Several Deputies, including Deputy Brennan, speaking on this Bill to-day, admitted that any Bill of this kind is bound to be a very difficult Bill to formulate. That is true. I found it very difficult to get this Bill put into shape, such shape as would meet all the conditions and as would fulfil as nearly as possible all the requirements first of the cottage tenants, secondly meet with the recommendations of the Majority Report of the Commission, and in the third place bear in mind the financial condition of the local authorities who will have to operate the Act afterwards. All these things have to be taken into account and put one with another.

I think we have got a good Bill. Not all of the speeches that were made, and I say it with all due respect to the Chair, were quite relevant. The discussion rambled quite a good deal. Deputy Cosgrave tried to make Queen Victoria and some historical as well as some living persons relevant under the Bill. But I think nobody rambled as much as Deputy Mulcahy. He made the most rambling and incoherent statements. He did not examine the Bill as critically as some of his colleagues. I suppose he was put in charge of it and tried to make the best case he could. He went into the question of housing in general. I wondered what he was at on the question of housing and the cost of housing. He talked a great deal about it, and one inferred from his statements that he had not the courage to say that we were spending too much on housing. But one could gather that that is what he wished to say. If there is anything on which we could spend money to advantage—I would almost say that we could not spend too much money on it —it is housing. Of course, we must bear in mind our resources and try to get value for the money. But in this House and out of it I have heard all classes of the community, people representing every shade of political opinion, advocate that we should spend more and more on housing. I find generally that the view of the great importance of housing is held by those associated in any measure of social reform. They would be of the same mind as I am myself, namely, knowing the housing position as it is that we could not spend too much money on solving the problem. I would like sometime if Deputy Mulcahy would take the opportunity of giving us the benefit a little more coherently and definitely of his views on housing. I would like him to speak as to whether we are spending too much money in proportion to our resources in an endeavour to solve the housing problem. We will have another housing Bill before this House ere long, and I would like to hear his views then. I readily admit that the agricultural worker is in a bad condition from the point of view of his income these times. I would say he has never been anything else. The agricultural worker has always been badly paid. I have come across agricultural workers, married men with families—I admit it is a good while ago—who were paid 4/- a week. To-day married men with families are paid, in some parts of the country, as low as 9/- or 10/- a week.

Mr. Corish

As low as 6/- a week.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

At any rate it is generally admitted that the agricultural worker is in a bad way and poorly paid. Of course, he has advantages that the town worker has not got. One cannot compare exactly his wage with the wage of the town worker. They are generally poorly paid, and they have to bring up their families on very little income. Despite that, I think everybody who takes any interest in the matter knows that there is a yearning among these people to be the owners of their homesteads and their plots. That yearning is there, and it is not in the lifetime of this Government or of the Government that preceded it that the agitation started among cottage holders for the right to purchase their holdings. The question arises then, what are the terms on which the tenants are being offered an opportunity to become the owners of their houses and plots? I think our terms are reasonable, all things considered. Deputy Cosgrave, if I understood him aright, said that on the Commission that sat to consider this matter, the cottage tenants had no representatives. They had at least two nominated by their own organisation. As far as I am aware, they were people very well able to put their case and make a good claim for the tenants. The majority report, the provisions of which are mainly the basis of our Bill, was signed by these two representatives of the cottage tenants.

The average rental of a cottage is 1/2, and the new annuity, 75 per cent., would be 10½d. I think a fair figure towards the cost of repairs could be reckoned at 5½d. a week. That would make the annuity for the purchase of the house, plus the cost of repairs, 1/4 a week. Therefore, the tenants of all these cottages will get the right to be the complete owners in fee-simple of their houses and lands at the end of a stated period for an additional 1½d. or 2d. a week, and that is not an unreasonable sum to ask. There is this much to be borne in mind with regard to repairs. These repairs were carried out by the board of health up to now, and, of course, it is more costly for such a body to get the repairs carried out than it would be for the tenants, who would probably do their own repairs. The repairs might be better done and more cheaply done by the tenants themselves than they could be by such a body as the board of health. We know, as a matter of fact, that in many cases boards of health for years have done little or nothing in the way of repairs, and I think it is quite probable that the tenants themselves, in the vast majority of cases, would keep their houses in a much better state of repair than they have been kept in the past by some boards of health—not all of them.

An effort has been made to compare what was done for the tenant farmers of the country in the way of getting a 50 per cent. reduction of their annuities and what is proposed for the holders of labourers' cottages under this Bill. One really cannot make a comparison; no proper comparison can be made. The farmer had to pay the full charges by way of annuity for his holding. The tenant of a cottage and plot has not paid anything more than 20 per cent. The Government of the day and the local authorities between them have paid the difference, so there is not a case that is comparable for doing the same thing for the cottage tenant as was done for the tenant farmer buying out his land. Since the Labourers Acts were passed, the State and the local authority have between them borne roughly 80 per cent. of the cost all the time. That has not been the position in regard to farmers and, therefore, the cottage tenant, the agricultural worker, where he got a cottage and plot, has been getting much better value from the State than has the tenant farmer. Of course, the condition of the agricultural workers had to be taken into account when these plots and cottages were being given to them and when the rent was being fixed. They could not have paid very much more. Indeed, some of them found it difficult to pay even so much. You cannot make demand in equity that the State do for the tenant of a labourer's cottage the same as was done for the farmer merely by reason of the fact that these moneys have been withheld from Great Britain.

Much play was made by several Deputies, including Deputies Cosgrave and Corish, about this money being withheld and put into the pockets of the Government of the day. Several times the phrase was used that the Government was reaping a profit. In that connection there is this much to be borne in mind, that there are many thousands of labourers, agricultural workers, who are living in hovels and who have been living in them for many years. For them this Government is endeavouring to get proper housing accommodation. While we are retaining certain moneys that used to be sent out of this country, we are doing more to bring the housing problem within reasonable sight of ending. We did more in the last three years or so than was ever even contemplated by the last Government during any of the ten years of its existence. If we are holding on to that or other moneys, the moneys are being well spent, at any rate so far as housing is concerned.

I would like to say in reply to Deputy Morrissey that there is no compulsion about this scheme, except that the local authority must prepare the scheme. The tenant in no case is obliged to purchase his holding. He can, if he thinks the terms are good, that it is a good bargain, purchase when a scheme has been adopted by a local authority with the sanction of the Minister. In such circumstances the tenant can become a purchaser. If he thinks it is not a good bargain he can let it alone. I know there are two opinions on this question as to whether it is wise for holders of labourers' cottages and plots to become the purchasers. I know that in every part of the House there are divisions upon that matter. There are some people who hold that tenants would be much better off by remaining as they are, paying to the local authorities, who in turn have to look after the repair of the house. They have general security of tenure so long as they pay their rent, and the rents they pay are very moderate. But that does not get over the fact that there is no part of the country in which there are not organisations doing propaganda work, calling upon tenants to become the owners of their cottages and plots. I have seen many comments upon this Bill. I have seen from one or two of them that they are not completely satisfied with the terms that we are giving. Still, they are prepared to accept them and put them into operation so far as they are concerned. Of course, they make a fight and try to get better terms.

I do not think there is anything more I need say. I do not think the difficulties that some Deputies have in mind with regard to the formation of schemes will arise. The outline of the scheme is in the Bill. Details can be filled in and the officials of the Department will be at their disposal at all times and will be glad to advise and assist local authorities in the formulation of schemes. If they are in any difficulty they can consult the Department in advance on the formulation of these schemes and in getting sanction for them. I hope the scheme in the Bill, when it passes, will operate without difficulty, and that many tenants will, under it, become the owners of their own holdings. In Dublin, which I know pretty well, I am aware that many of the ordinary tenants of small holdings would be glad to have the opportunity of becoming owners of their own little houses in 25 or 30 years, and would be very happy if they could do so. Public utility societies in existence now putting up schemes, large or small, in Dublin, are overwhelmed by numbers of people asking for opportunities of becoming tenant proprietors under these schemes, even though they do have to pay a great deal more than the ordinary rent under these schemes. Many tenants under local authorities and boards of health would be very happy to pay more than the ordinary rent so that they would be able, in 30 or 35 years time, to realise that they would be proprietors in fee of their own houses. There was one matter I was troubled about and that was to see that these cottages, subject to the purchase scheme, would remain in the hands of agricultural workers. That was an important aspect of the matter and I think that we have safeguarded it. I would be glad if all members of the House were as interested in holding these purchases for agricultural workers as I am; and if there is any amendment they could suggest to make that matter more secure I would be glad to have their assistance.

General Mulcahy

The Minister said the Bill could be amended. There are two points in which a large number of people suggest that amendments are desirable. The Minister informs us now that the scheme implies an approximate twopence a week increase in the rents of the tenants. He said nothing at all on the various remarks made on the cost of repairs to local authorities. The details of the interim report indicated that local authorities could be relieved of £50,000 and tenants of £32,000. The presentation of the scheme in the Bill and the Minister's statement indicated that the tenants are to bear £17,000 or £18,000 additional cost. The Minister has not addressed himself to the cost of the minimum repairs of the house. No Deputy can put in an amendment that could deal with this rather radical point. I ask the Minister now if he will put in amendments that will deal with these points.

Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for December 11th, 1935.