Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Dec 1949

Vol. 37 No. 6

Expiring Laws Bill, 1949—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Senators are, I know, quite familiar with the contents of this Bill. The Acts specified in the Schedule would expire on 31st December, and this Bill proposes to continue their operation for another year. There are no special points to which I should direct the attention of the House on this occasion, as the list of Acts being continued is identical with that contained in the Expiring Laws Act, 1948, which was passed by the Seanad 12 months ago. The Explanatory Memorandum circulated with the Bill explains the necessity for continuing these measures, and I can assure the House that the permanent legislation to replace these Acts will be introduced as early as possible.

As Senators are aware, we have usually a heavy legislative programme in the Department of Local Government, and those questions which are most urgent must get precedence over the work of consolidation involved in replacing the measures dealt with in this Bill by permanent legislation. Nevertheless, the work of consolidation is proceeding, and I hope that before long a Bill of this kind will not be needed each year. Indeed, the number of Acts now being continued is much less than a few years ago. There is at present before the Seanad a Bill entitled the Local Government (Repeal of Enactments) Bill which will repeal a good deal of the dead wood of local government law. Detailed consideration is being given to this Bill by the Special Committee appointed by the Seanad. I do not think that it is necessary for me to go into any further details as the House will, as I have already said, be familiar with the contents of this Bill from previous years.

We all know this is a hardy annual coming up for enactment each year. We are glad to see the list of enactments is slowly but surely growing less, and we hope that by this time next year they will be fewer. Our whole legislation in relation to parliamentary elections is very much out of date and I think it would be well if the Parliamentary Secretary, and the Department in general, devoted some attention to bringing it up to date to meet present day requirements. In that connection, while it may not have a direct bearing on the Bill, I should like to see some more serious attempt being made to have a proper voters' list compiled, and thereby ensure that every person of 21 years of age who is entitled, according to the Constitution, to have a vote will be in the position when polling day comes along that his or her name is on the Register of Voters. We know from experience that it has been compiled in a very slipshod manner. We have the county council or the rate collecting authority responsible for part of the work. We have the county registrar the responsible person for ensuring the voters' list is printed, compiled, revised and all other formalities. The work is spread over so many departments and so many persons that it is very hard to pin down omissions to any particular individual or organisation.

Therefore, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to look into that matter and to take some more definite steps to ensure it is brought up to date. Of course, the Labourers Act is one that is long overdue. Members of local authorities are quite aware of the difficulties they have in relation to the many Acts passed dealing with the provision of housing for the working classes of various descriptions. I do not wish to delay very long except to refer to the Local Government Act, 1941, of which Section 65 is being held. The purpose of that is to enable local authorities temporary borrowing for current expenses. Normally, any such borrowing must be repaid out of revenue, and by the provisions of Section 65 of the Local Government Act, the time for repayment is extended ten years. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind when he formulates, as I understand there is in course of formulation, a new Local Government Act, to make provision for what, at the present time, is a very heavy burden on many of our local authorities. They are being urged at present to undertake large housing schemes. In the ordinary way, an application is made to the Local Loans Fund or insurance society or some organisation of one kind or another for the necessary finance to finance the scheme, but this money is not available in many cases until a great portion of the work is carried out and for the initial stages, for the development and purchase of the land, local authorities are, in many cases, obliged to borrow from their banks and the rate of borrowing in that case is usually 2 or 3 per cent. It is a heavy burden on our local authorities. I think there should be some provision made whereby, when a local authority undertakes to carry out schemes of that kind, the money should be made available to them at the approved rate from the Local Loans Fund, rather than compelling them to go to their local banks and compelling them to raise money at a higher rate of interest than has to be paid on the loan originally sanctioned, either from the Loan Fund or the insurance society.

I should like to refer to the Labourers' Act of 1936 which deals with the purchase of cottages. It is a matter with which several county councils, especially Limerick County Council, are very much concerned. The Cottage Purchase Act of 1936 was passed with the very best intentions. The idea was that workers should own their own houses and an acre of ground which would give them a sense of independence. This is the same idea as the idea of the farmers' Land Purchase Acts. It is an idea which should be encouraged. At that time the question of resale did not matter because in 1936 with the various housing schemes practically every working family who wanted a house had one. As building was comparatively cheap and there seemed no reason why that should not continue, the right of resale did not arise. There was no incentive to sell as prices were low. The emergency brought about a completely different situation and the value of those houses went up rapidly. All over the country there was a tendency for workers to sell their cottages and unfortunately they did not sell them to workers of their own class to whom the cottages were limited. They are limited to agricultural labourers but the term "agricultural labourers" has been extended to embrace practically every man who works for pay.

Suppose a cottage becomes vacant and there are six or eight applicants for it, the county manager selects the man who is most in need of it or who has the largest family. On taking possession the man can sign a purchase application form and any time from three to six months later the cottage is automatically vested in him and he can put it up for sale and walk away with £400. It is not fair to the rate-payers and it is not fair to the workers. So many families are tempted to go to England and there is such a terrible scarcity of houses that there is a very great temptation for poor people to sell their houses to more comfortable people. If the thing is allowed to go on a great proportion of the houses which were built for the poorest class of the community will pass to more comfortable people. The poorest workers, the real agricultural workers, will have no houses except the new cottages which have a rent two or three times higher than the others.

We are greatly concerned with this matter in Limerick, because there are over 5,000 cottages in the county. On two or three occasions the county council asked the Government to intervene and to suspend cottage purchase and I think the General Council of County Councils must have done the same. There was an application at the last meeting for the sale of a cottage, which was refused, and the purchase cost was £100. We had been speaking of contracts for cottages at £800 and £900 and one member suggested that we should buy this cottage for £100 instead of building one for £800 or £900. That shows the absurdity of the position.

We all agree that it is a very good idea that cottages should be purchased and the workers independent, but the right of resale should be slowed down or suspended for the present until the housing schemes provide sufficient houses for everyone and then the temptation to sell will not be so great. In Limerick we tried as best we could to slow it down by making a rule that a tenant could not resell unless he were eight years in occupation. It is very doubtful whether we were legally entitled to do it, but having built the houses the council was very anxious to retain them for the workers. Since this concerns the Department of Local Government I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into it. It is a matter of great urgency. I speak in the interests of the poorest section because they are the people who will eventually suffer if the cottages are taken from them. Until the purchase terms of the cottages are fully redeemed they should not be sold, and until houses become more plentiful resale should be suspended.

I think he might also look into the question of cottiers accepting lodgers. There is a law against this no matter how much house room they may have, and it is a hardship on people who could increase their income in this way. It is a relic of red tape. The late Minister for Local Government promised to remove all red tape that impeded housing schemes. It is difficult to get housing sites in the country and compulsory acquisition is a very slow process whereas sites could be got voluntarily. In the old scheme each cottage had an acre of ground and it seems at present as if they are not needed. Many cottiers are anxious to get rid of half an acre and it would be well if the county manager or local authority were allowed to purchase a half acre from them which would be suitable for building as it would speed up housing considerably.

I suppose it is true to say that the matter raised by Senator O'Dwyer comes within the terms of the Bill.

Most things do.

The problem to which he has addressed himself is a problem in a great many counties to-day. It is a problem in my county and it is obviously a very burning question in Limerick. I have to confess to considerable surprise at the prices people are prepared to offer for labourers' cottages in Limerick. I have not heard of anything as high as £200 in my county but £100 has frequently been offered. As far as I understand it, the position at the moment is that the sanction of the local authority has to be obtained before the purchase of a cottage can go through and that that sanction can be refused.

I do not think so.

An essential point is that the cottage must be sold to a labourer, but the interpretation of the word "labourer" is so wide that as well as agricultural labourers it may include carpenters, blacksmiths, plasterers and engine drivers. It is so wide that a great many people can be legitimately accepted as persons to occupy these cottages.

I think the position confronting the Parliamentary Secretary, or anybody attempting to deal with this problem, is almost impossible. How can you hold up the operations of the Acts, so long as it is the law, or how are we going to give the right to some people to sell their cottages and deny the same right to others? I think that it would cause great difficulties. There is a great deal in what Senator O'Dwyer says in support of his argument to give the local authority the right to become purchasers of cottages offered for sale. It is a point of view which must be considered when the transfer of a cottage from one occupant to another is contemplated. If the local authority has not the legal powers to purchase the cottage, I believe that they should be given them, so that they can purchase cottages before anybody else, and solve a problem which has become really grotesque. It is, indeed, grotesque that a local authority should see one of its cottages sold for something like £100, while at the same time, in an adjoining field, the same local authority has to undertake the obligation of building another cottage at something like £800.

The whole situation of housing agricultural labourers to-day has changed to such an extent that it requires reexamination. I believe there is a great deal to be said for Senator O'Dwyer's point in regard to the right of the local authority to purchase portion of the acre attached to the old cottages. In many cases, these labourers are not in the least bit concerned about how they manage this acre—you will find in most cases that many of these acres are the worst managed in the country. Many of them could be more usefully utilised if the local authority had the right and power to take over portion of them because it would help us to get on with the work. To ask governmental power at the moment to amend the law is to ask for a very difficult step to be taken. It is difficult for us to deny the right of an occupier to sell, although it is known that if the matter were tested, it might not be possible to stand over the occupancy of the cottage by a particular person from a legal point of view, but at the same time, the position which has developed is giving very serious concern to every conscientious member of a local authority, and I say it definitely requires examination.

I suppose I should be thankful for small mercies. This, however, is a big mercy, because the range of debate on this particular Bill, although it is a small Bill, could be very wide indeed. The Bill relates to about 20 Acts of Parliament, 13 of which deal with housing legislation. Some interesting points have been raised by Senators who have contributed to the discussion. I was interested to hear some of their comments, especially the comments made by Senator Hawkins about the legislation in connection with elections. While it is untrue to say that the whole legislation in connection with elections in this country is inadequate, and all wrong, it is right to say that the legislation which provides for the making of petitions or the making of objections against improper elections is unsatisfactory. The legislation is provided by the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868. That procedure governs elections to the Dáil or Seanad, or local government bodies, and it is wrong to say it is out of date when, actually, it is not, but the procedure of the hearing of the petitions or objections seems to be out of date. God knows what would happen if anybody would object to any of us being elected to the Seanad or Dáil. But, I rather imagine that cumbersome though that legislation is, it could be applied to an appeal of that kind.

Senator Hawkins expressed displeasure at the way in which voters' lists are being compiled at the present time. We politicians, I suppose, have our own grievances in this respect, especially anybody with intimate knowledge of the working of an election on election day. We know it is disconcerting for members of all Parties to have calls from irate constituents or would-be voters, complaining that their names were not on the register, but I do not think there could be a lot of criticism in that respect, inasmuch as every single person in the country and every single political Party, have the remedy in their own hands.

These voters' lists are published every year and I think they are sent to the elected representatives in the Dáil, at least, as well as being placed on display in the post offices, and anybody who thinks he should be included or who thinks that there is somebody on it who should not be included can readily complain to the county registrar. I may say that public representatives and representatives of political Parties have used their rights from time to time to check these lists in so far as, let us say, sometimes their supporters are concerned, to ensure that some voters are included on the list—mainly, no doubt, voters who would support their own Party.

When we find that rate collectors compiling the register do not do their jobs thoroughly in accordance with the regulations or conditions laid down, the Department of Local Government has from time to time taken appropriate action; but I do not think that there is a great deal of criticism which could be levelled at the system of compilation of the electoral register.

Senator Hawkins raised the question about Section 65 of the 1941 Act. Actually, this particular section would not apply to borrowing for permanent works like housing, but I can assure the Senator that his remarks will be borne in mind when a new Bill, a permanent Bill, regarding borrowing is being considered by the Minister.

Senator O'Dwyer was very annoyed about the resale of cottages which had been purchased under the 1936 cottage purchase scheme. I was amazed to think that there was, to any extent at all, the resale of such cottages, because I rather imagined that county councils themselves had a right to impose a veto if they desired on such resales. I think I am right in saying that no owner of a purchased cottage can resell without the consent of the local authority. I think it is thoroughly undesirable that these cottages should be resold by agricultural labourers. It would be a very bad state of affairs to create a situation in which somebody from Dublin or Cork could come to a seaside resort and purchase a labourer's cottage for any amount, just to occupy it for two or three months during the summer evenings. I do not think that county councils generally would approve of such resales. These cottages have been provided for a certain class but, as Senator Baxter said, the term "agricultural labourer" embraces practically all sections in the rural areas, and I think it would be bad if any number of them were to pass out of the hands of the people for whom they were intended. I was interested to hear Senator O'Dwyer saying that it was happening in County Limerick.

It is happening all round.

If it is, it will certainly be investigated. If there is an abuse, I do not think any Government could tolerate it for any length of time.

This small Bill covers very many Acts of Parliament. A discussion could take place here for hours and hours but, as I said in my introductory remarks, it is merely an annual Bill to continue certain Acts of Parliament and I would like the approval of the Seanad to it.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.
Bill passed through Committee without amendment, received for final consideration, and passed.
Top
Share