Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Dec 1923

Vol. 2 No. 8

SEANAD IN COMMITTEE.

Sections 1, 2, 3 and First Schedule agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Mr. T. LINEHAN

I beg to move:—

To delete from this Schedule the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, together with the several Amending Acts therein referred to.

I have tabled this amendment for the purpose of having the matter of the erection of labourers' cottages in the rural districts considered and discussed by the Seanad. These Acts have been forty years in existence and have been renewed every year under the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act. I hold that the object for which these Acts were passed has been achieved and that a sufficient number of cottages have been erected in the rural areas for the people qualified to be tenants. In fact, in some districts more houses have been built than tenants can be found for. In some cases it has been necessary to give two houses to one tenant in order to keep the houses from falling into disrepair. In other cases the cottages have actually fallen down or the material with which they have been built has been looted and the cottages are now total wrecks. The land attached to those cottages that are vacant has become a commonage, or it has reverted to the former owner from whom it had been purchased by the District Council. I hold that if there is any money available for housing it should be diverted from the rural areas and utilised for the clearing and replacement of the city and urban slums, in order to provide proper housing accommodation for the inhabitants. When these cottages were originally erected under the first Act they were built at a cost of about £80 per cottage, and the rent fixed, of 1s. per week, or £2 12s. per year, very nearly covered the sum required to pay the interest and sinking fund on the money borrowed. As time went on the cost increased. At the present time, I believe, it would cost from £350 to £400 to erect a labourer's cottage. The District Councils and the Boards of Guardians are bound to keep these cottages in repair, and the cost of the repairs in most districts at present amounts to a considerably greater sum than is received from the tenants. From a business point of view, therefore, it would be good policy for the country and for the ratepayers that the cottages should be transferred altogether to the tenants so as to get rid of the liability for keeping them in repair.

I think it would be possible to evolve a scheme of purchase on similar lines to that included in the recent Land Act, whereby the tenants of cottages could become owners of them, and also of the plots attached, by paying an annuity that would be considerably less than the rents they are, at present, paying. There is no doubt that when the houses were originally erected, after the Acts were passed, a great necessity existed for improving the housing conditions in the country. I hold that that object has been achieved, and that it will be simply waste of money to incur any further expenditure in rural areas in the erection of cottages. It is difficult to get tenants for the houses already built, notwithstanding the fact that many people have possession of them who are not qualified under the Acts to obtain them. I put down this amendment in order that the Seanad might have an opportunity of discussing the matter.

Mr. BENNETT

I have listened with great interest to what Senator Linehan has said with regard to the Labourers Acts. While many of the errors he mentioned have occurred, I think they were due to the administration by the local authority rather than to the Acts themselves. The view that the need for houses has been completely filled in the rural districts is one that I dissent from. In the district from which I come, probably more houses have been built—in the Kilmallock Rural District—than in any other district in Ireland. Yet, to my mind, a want for further housing exists. The suggestion that the money available—if any was available—should be taken from the rural districts and expended in slum districts in towns or cities may be an admirable one, but I feel that the agricultural industry owes a debt to its labour, and that that could be in no way fulfilled by a transference of any money to city districts. The principle that was tried in Ireland, and I think successfully, that an industry should be responsible for the maintenance of the labour employed in it was, to my mind, an admirable one. I think in course of legislation in future times all big industries may possibly be made responsible for the proper housing of those engaged in them. As to the question of repairs to which Senator Linehan alluded, it is unfortunately true that repairs to cottages in nearly every district have completely swallowed up the weekly rents paid by the tenants. I think that was owing to the fact that the repairs were executed not in an economical way, but in a slipshod fashion. There were endless numbers of small contractors roaming around the country doing one little bit here and another little bit there. All these contractors were enjoying the patronage of the District Councils. It is in the air that the position of District Councils and their administration is to be considered by the Government. I hope, in the future, that men will be returned whose anxiety it will be to administer their functions in an economical way. When that desirable end is attained, I think the grave errors to which Senator Linehan alluded will not occur. A scheme of purchase, to my mind, is outside the debate on this occasion. If the tenants would purchase I think it is a consummation to be devoutly wished for. Personally, I may say that I suggested such a scheme some years ago, but the labourers did not think it was a wise thing for them. I hope they will see in time it may be a wise thing. I think if a tenant owned his house he would have a greater incentive to keep it, and not inflict serious injury to it. For the reasons I have stated, I do not think Senator Linehan's amendment, to exclude the various Acts from the Second Schedule of the Bill, should be allowed to pass, and I beg to oppose it.

Mr. DUFFY

I wish to oppose the amendment for various reasons. My principal reason is that the Labourers Acts were brought in, mainly through the failure of the agricultural employers in this country, to provide suitable accommodation for the workers which was necessary if the industry was to be carried on successfully. That fact cannot be disputed. Since the passing of the Acts I hold that nothing has occurred which would justify the Government in changing the present system of providing housing accommodation for agricultural workers.

I am rather sorry that I had not an opportunity of getting some figures and returns of a number of schemes held up at present through the scarcity of finance. I think the Minister will probably be able to give us the necessary information. I received notice of this amendment only to-day, and consequently had not the time to find out the necessary information. But I know that various schemes in the county from which I come have been held up for the past four or five, or perhaps seven or eight, years on account of the enormous increase in the cost of building materials. Some of those schemes were nearly completed at the time the schemes were stopped. I do not see how this work is to be brought to any sort of successful conclusion in the event of this amendment being passed. I think, however, with regard to necessary amendments of the Labourers Acts, that the eleventh hour is not the proper time to raise this question or to bring about the vital change that would be brought about by the passing of the amendment.

With regard to the repairs of the cottages, Senator Bennett has stated that some time ago a scheme was evolved to provide for the purchase of the cottages. I, as representing the agricultural workers, would have no hesitation in accepting a scheme that would confer upon the occupiers of the labourers' cottages benefits similar to what the Land Acts conferred upon the farming community. But I cannot see at the moment how it is feasible to bring a scheme of that sort into operation, because the fact remains that the costs of repairs at present borne by the ratepayers are greater than the rents paid for the cottages. I fail to see how any scheme could throw the onus of carrying out the repairs on the labourers, provide for the repayment of the loan to the Board of Works, and at the same time give relief to the occupiers of the cottages. I am against the amendment.

Mr. MacLYSAGHT

I am against this amendment, because it does not seem to accomplish anything. Everybody here is more than anxious to see everything done, that can possibly be done, towards housing the working population of the country. This amendment does not help at all, because of the fact that there is no money available. The power is there. That power may be wanted again, and ought, therefore, be left. My main object in rising is to say that I am sure the experience of most people is that the suggestion made by Senator Linehan, that two houses are very often given to one tenant, is entirely inaccurate. I never heard of such a case in my life. With regard to houses falling down, there may be odd cases, but I am sure that only occurs in parts of the country which are entirely occupied by rangers.

Mr. FARREN

I am surprised that any member of this assembly would table such a motion as this. The idea behind this motion is to deprive the unfortunate agricultural labourers of Ireland of decent habitations. The Senator who introduced this amendment told us that in several areas there were houses for which they could not find tenants, that, in fact, houses were so numerous that some tenants had two. I am certainly pleased to hear it, because my experience is the reverse. I think the Senator might have told us the areas in which these houses are. I certainly know the Province of Leinster, and I challenge contradiction when I say that there are not nearly sufficient houses in the whole of the Province of Leinster or in any quarter of it, to meet the requirements of the agricultural population living there. The language in which this amendment was moved may lead the members of the Seanad to believe that there are houses going a-begging. Everybody knows that people are being condemned to live in the rural parts of Ireland, as well as in the urban areas, under conditions which are a disgrace to civilisation. We know that in many small miserable dwellings there are three or four families, in which the people have to live in such a way that there can be no respect for the sexes. The people in such cases are herded together just like swine. The object underlying this amendment is to take off the Statute Book one of the best and most humane Acts ever passed by the British Parliament, as far as the working class people of this country are concerned.

I never thought that in this assembly I would find a Senator moving to take from the Statute Book this most important measure that was first introduced for the purpose of giving to the unfortunate agricultural labourers of this country an opportunity to live in some sort of decency. I do not want to go into the merits of the question of repairs. It is the principle underlying this amendment that I deal with and I hope the Seanad will scout it.

I hope that when amendments like this are moved in the future some justification will be put forward, that some facts will be submitted that would justify a Senator in moving such an amendment. The idea of this Bill was to provide houses for the unfortunate agricultural labourers at a rent that they could pay. Senator Linehan told us that houses were let at 1s. a week. That is not the fault of the agricultural labourer. At the time this measure was passed the agricultural labourer had the magnificent weekly wage of from 10s. to 12s. to keep a family of from eight to ten people. Everybody knows that owing to the high standard of morality prevailing in this country amongst agricultural labourers, they are blessed by the Almighty with very large families. But because of the fact that their employers did not pay a sufficient wage to enable them to pay an economic rent, the State had to come in and build houses in order that these poor men would live as human beings and Christians. That was the object underlying the bringing in of this measure, and now it is proposed to take the privilege away from those unfortunate labourers who are not housed. There are many thousands of such in the country. These men are just as badly in need of houses as the labourers for whom houses have been already built. I sincerely hope the good sense of the Seanad will scout the amendment in the way it deserves.

Mrs. COSTELLO

I also wish to oppose this amendment. From my experience, as a District Councillor in North Galway, I know that every time a cottage is vacant, there are three or four applicants for it.

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

I do not think that Senator Linehan had any evil purpose in moving the amendment. He does not give me the impression of Machiavelli. I do not imagine, either, that he expected that the Seanad would agree with him. We are indebted to him for initiating a most interesting debate. I think the Seanad would be always glad to discuss questions of this nature. I think these Labourers Acts, which have been operating in this country for over thirty years, are amongst the best Acts ever passed by any country; I think they are admirable Acts, and there is no doubt they have done an enormous amount of good. The only thing that surprises me is that other countries have not taken a leaf out of our book.

In other countries they are faced with the difficulty of proper housing particularly for agricultural labourers, but this country, small as it is, is the only country that has shown other civilised countries the best way of dealing with this important question. If we look back some years we can well remember the sort of houses that labourers in the country lived in. They were hovels not fit for human beings to live in. Now, in most rural districts, particularly tillage districts, you will find a marvellous improvement, and one cannot but be struck by the nice cottages on the roadside and the charming, clean, healthy children you will see around them. All this is undoubtedly the result of the Labourers Acts.

No doubt, in every human endeavour, there are imperfections. Senator Linehan said that in one fortunate district, with which he happens to be acquainted, there were too many houses. I agree with the Senators opposite that we have not yet discovered that district; certainly I have not discovered it. I would suggest to Senator Linehan that he would be doing a great public service if he advertised the district in which there are too many labourers' cottages. If he would do so, I am sure there would be no difficulty in having them occupied. As regards the instance of one man occupying two houses, they do that in Utah, but I did not know that it was done in Ireland.

Regarding the question of badly-built houses, there is no doubt some of them are abominably built. I was for many years engaged in this business, and I think I know something about it. When public money is being spent, especially in the way that a great deal of public money has been spent, you do not get the best return for it. There are many defects in the labourers' cottages that have been erected, and the result is that every now and then the ratepayers have to meet a very considerable bill for repairs. I hope that when houses are being built in the future they will be better constructed, and probably more commodious and altogether an advance on those erected in the past. Some of the houses that are now in process of erection, or that have been recently built, are admirable in every respect.

There is one point in which I am very much interested, and in regard to which I hold very strong views. The proper solution of this question is, in my opinion, to make the labourers the owners of their own houses. I have always believed that would solve the problem. In the past it was not thought desirable that labourers should become owners. There was some objection that I could never fathom. The proper course would be to make the labourers owners of the houses. They would then take a pride in them and keep them in proper order and I am sure the ratepayers would not have so much to complain of.

Mr. LINEHAN

I do not regret having brought forward this matter. We have had it here admitted that the cost of repairing these houses is greater than the rent received. I would ask those who are advocating building schemes in cities, whether they propose to erect houses the rents of which will not be sufficient to keep them in repair. That is the state of affairs in the rural districts. No Government grant has been given for the erection of those houses; there has been merely a loan given to the local authority, and that has to be repaid. All the money will be repaid by the ratepayers. The amount advanced for the erection of these cottages up to the 31st March, 1920, was £4,609,000; that is a charge on all the ratepayers of the country where these houses have been built. It is a mistake to say that the Government gave grants for the erection of those houses. They have been erected by the ratepayers, and I think the ratepayers are entitled to see that if the rents are not able to meet the cost of repairs, the Government ought to evolve some scheme that will relieve them of that liability. I do not regret having brought forward this matter, in view of the discussion that has taken place. With the permission of the Seanad, I am now prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Second Schedule put and agreed to.

Title and Preamble put and agreed to.