Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Jun 1930

Vol. 35 No. 7

International Conventions. - Labourers Bill, 1930—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (General Mulcahy)

I move the Second Reading of this Bill. Section 238 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, provides that the amount borrowed by sanitary authorities for the purposes of these Acts shall not exceed twice the annual valuation of the area that is involved. In the case of houses for the working classes, moneys borrowed for that purpose were included as part of the debt that had to be taken into consideration when estimating the borrowing powers of a local authority. In the case of houses of the working classes, so far as urban districts are concerned, in 1908 moneys borrowed for that purpose were removed from under the scope of the Public Health Acts, so that debts on an urban district arising out of borrowings made for that purpose were not taken into consideration when the borrowing powers of the local authorities in connection with work under the Public Health Acts were being considered.

The position, however, has remained that moneys borrowed for the purpose of building labourers' cottages are still taken into consideration when estimating the borrowing powers of a local authority other than that of an urban district. The resultant position is, that in many cases where important works of drainage and sewerage are required in towns where there are town commissioners but not an urban district council, the limit of borrowing is exhausted, or very nearly exhausted, because of the fact that moneys borrowed for labourers' cottages are taken into consideration. This Bill proposes to put moneys borrowed for the provision of labourers' cottages in the same position as moneys borrowed for the provision of houses for the working classes. The position under this Bill will be this, that places like Balbriggan and Mullingar and some other places where waterworks and sewerage schemes are required and where it is not possible to allow them to raise money at the present time to carry them out because of the extent of the borrowings they have already undertaken, will now be able to undertake such works because moneys borrowed for the provision of labourers' cottages will be removed from consideration of the amount of their debt. This restriction was placed at the very beginning in 1885. While to some extent a restriction like it might be warranted at the present moment, while removing it there will be full administrative examination of the general condition of affairs of local authorities before they will be allowed to borrow for public health purposes. We are not running any risk that the borrowing powers of local authorities will be unduly exercised simply because we are taking off this restriction.

Mr. O'Kelly

I agree that the restriction that this Bill proposes to remove is one that ought to be removed. It is one, perhaps, that should have been removed a long time ago. That the restriction was there may, perhaps, be one of the reasons why we have been so slow in developing sewerage schemes, water schemes and other schemes of that kind in various parts of the rural areas in the Free State. I do not know whether the presence of that restriction had anything to do with the slowing down in recent years in the number of labourers' cottages that were built.

If the Minister has the figures handy, we would be glad to know from him the number of labourers' cottages built in, say, the last five years. My impression is that over the last ten years there has been a considerable drop in the number of cottages built. Of course, there were more reasons than the presence of this restriction for the failure to build these cottages in recent years. This restriction probably affected the borrowing powers of local authorities in carrying out other matters as well as the building of labourers' cottages. It would be interesting to know the number of labourers' cottages that have been built by local authorities in the last ten years, and particularly in the last five years. We hope that the removal of this restriction will have the effect of so increasing the borrowing powers of local authorities that the carrying out of works such as the Minister referred to—drainage, sanitation, water schemes—as well as the building of labourers' cottages, will be expedited, and that local authorities will be encouraged to borrow largely for these desirable purposes. On the whole, the proposal to remove the restriction is a good one and has our support.

Mr. T. Murphy

I desire to say that in my opinion it is not making the best use of Parliamentary time to introduce a Bill of this kind. The Minister, in his very brief statement, in appealing for support for the Bill, said it was intended to remove the restriction in operation at present in the matter of rural housing, and that its passage would enable housing schemes for rural areas to be proceeded with. I think the Minister, Deputy O'Kelly and most members of the House who are conversant with the affairs of local authorities must know that the real restriction in the way of providing houses for labourers in the country is not to be found in the reason given by the Minister. The real reason, as the Minister must know, why these schemes are not being carried out is to be found in the refusal of the Minister's Department to provide the money to initiate schemes of rural housing. While this Bill will only affect in a very small way probably a few areas, it seems to me to be a rather cruel joke that we should have Parliamentary time taken up with the discussion of a Labourers Bill that, even in its title, is entirely misnamed.

I thought when I saw mention of this Bill in the newspapers the Minister was bearing in mind certain criticisms that were made here on the Local Government Estimate, and that in this Bill we were to have some contribution made by his Department to rural housing. Members of local authorities are aware that month after month at meetings of the boards of health there are applicants numbering eight, nine or a dozen in many cases, looking for the tenancy of labourers' cottages. The only opportunity local authorities have at the moment for providing houses of the kind is by making application to their treasurer—a local bank. The real restriction to housing is to be found in the fact that money cannot be got on more favourable terms for a period of ten or fifteen years. I wish to direct the Minister's attention to a report that appeared in the Press within the last few weeks as to the terms upon which the Board of Health in North Tipperary were able to obtain a loan for rural housing, and which the Department was not in a position to provide. The Board of Health were able to get a loan from an English insurance company of a sum of money for sixty years at five per cent. for the purpose of building houses in Roscrea. The Minister will find that the real restriction as regards rural housing is the difficulty of being able to obtain a loan on favourable terms. The proper course to adopt is to withdraw the Bill and embody it in a subsequent Bill that will deal with the removal of obstacles to rural housing. The provisions the Minister has inserted in the Bill are in some small way necessary, but they do not deal with urgent questions that should be dealt with in a Bill of this kind, if there is any desire to remove obstacles to rural housing, and which the Minister knows can only be removed in a certain way.

Mr. Derrig

I desire to support Deputy O'Kelly and Deputy Murphy in their demand that the Minister should have a definite policy to put before the House in this matter. Last week I called attention to the fact that a number of small towns throughout the Free State are suffering very grievously by reason of the fact that their inhabitants are living in absolutely primitive conditions. I would like the Minister in his reply to state what is the responsibility of the county medical officers of health in this matter, and whether they have any power by which they can bring pressure to bear, with the Minister's assistance, upon local bodies to deal with these matters. I am aware of the fact that the whole difficulty of dealing with this question lies in the fixing of the area of charge. Now that the Minister is, as I understand, calling together a national conference, he should take the opportunity of putting a strong case before the local bodies who have been very backward and he should point out to them that this work is one of the first importance, and work which must be done eventually.

I support the previous speakers in their complaint that nothing has been done for rural labourers as far as we are aware. At present whatever amount of work is available on the roads is the sole thing that the rural labourer can look to, as so far as work on the farms is concerned it is at a very low ebb. The Land Commission should be expected to give some assistance to labourers, and where land is available if the labourers give proof of their industry they should have a right to get portion of the land. It is the settled policy of the Land Commission not to give land to landless men. The excuse is there is not enough of land to go around to be divided amongst the congests or the uneconomic holders in the vicinity of the land that is being distributed. The effect of not having an alternative policy to providing allotments and cottages to rural labourers is that nothing has been done for them, while a good deal has been done for other sections of the community.

I think the Minister should bear that in mind. The small holders, and there are many of them in my constituency, who have only a few acres of land and no capital, no matter how good a character they may bear, find it impossible to get any land. As these people are an asset, and a far bigger asset than the people who have hundreds of acres of land and give no employment, I appeal to the Minister to produce something definite and not merely to come along with a proposal to extend the borrowing powers of the commissioners, for that in itself means very little. The resources that will be available to the local commissioners will be exceedingly small. I think all sections of the House would like that the Minister would do something imaginative in this matter.

Mr. Everett

I would like to support the appeal made by Deputy Murphy to the Minister. I think the real reason the Minister has introduced the Bill is that in examining the accounts of the public bodies he has found innumerable cases where borrowing powers were exhausted, and that they were unable to proceed with drainage or waterworks schemes, or matters of that kind, and not that he is interested in the housing of rural workers. Those who are members of public bodies have experience of the Minister's attitude towards the housing of the working classes in the rural areas. There have been appeals from almost all the public bodies in Ireland to extend the local loans and to give to the boards of health the same facilities as are given to the urban councils. That would not settle the housing problem, but it would go a long way towards providing houses for agricultural labourers. The Minister in his speech on the Local Government Bill gave the real reason why houses are not being provided when he said that the agricultural labourers are unable to pay an economic rent of 5/- or 6/- a week out of their wage of 10/-. Then we will take the Minister's speech at the Chamber of Commerce when he gave an account of his stewardship to the very people who are opposed to building houses for the rural workers. One of his supporters admits that if that is the only contribution of the Minister to the housing problem he sees no hope of its being solved.

We have had experience of the Minister's inspectors where in order to satisfy certain elements in an area after private visits they refused to give land for the building of houses for agricultural labourers. The Minister stated he has no power, but surely he could bring in some Bill to give him power to override the decision of an inspector who is glorying in the fact that he has more powers now than the Minister. This particular inspector was right. He had in mind people of the same class as the members of the Chambers of Commerce.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy knows that the inspector and the Chamber of Commerce are outside this Bill.

Mr. Everett

The Minister gave that lecture in the Chamber of Commerce, and realising the effects of the inspector's decision, I thought this was the only opportunity I would have outside of Longford and Westmeath of dealing with the matter. I would like to ask the Minister to tell us the number of boards of health that have applied for loans to build houses for rural workers on fifteen-year terms from the bank. If the Minister gives the correct answer as to the number of Boards that have applied in the last two years, the Dáil will find that there is no necessity for this Bill, which is intended to encourage public bodies to look for loans for sewerage and drainage purposes. If the Minister is so keen on housing, will he explain why no reply was given to a public body who sent on their plans in April last?

General Mulcahy

What public body?

Mr. Everett

You are well aware of it. The Wicklow Urban Council.

General Mulcahy

Deputy Everett is quite right, and, if the talk on this Bill is a waste of Parliamentary time, as Deputy Murphy would say, it is not my fault, as the Bill is directed to enable public bodies who want to carry out public health work, and who are prevented from doing so owing to the fact that loans for labourers' cottages are counted as part of their debts, to carry out such work. We are doing away with the restrictions which, as Deputy O'Kelly says, might have been done away with some time ago, but the necessity for that only arises now. In reply to the remarks made on the housing side of the question and the restrictions that prevent labourers' cottages being built, I will first answer Deputy O'Kelly who asked the number of cottages that have been built. The number built before 1926 was 20,357, and before the 31st March, 1927, the total then built was 42,189. By the 31st March last the total number of cottages, either built or provided for, that is, money allotted for them, was 42,303.

Mr. Corish

It looks big in thousands. Would you tell us there were 200 built?

General Mulcahy

I am enabling the House to put the figures which I propose to give in their proper perspective. Since 1924 the following cottages were provided for—County Cork, 45; County Dublin, 244; Laoighis, 5; Longford, 16; Offaly, 5; Meath, 40. These are the numbers. With regard to the restrictions, I am, as I have said, only addressing myself in this measure to enabling local bodies, who want to go ahead with public health work, to do so. When we address ourselves to the Labourers Act there is another restriction which we will have to deal with and we will deal with it in a general Housing Bill later on. There is a restriction of one shilling in the pound on the rates, extended to 1/3, where the Minister gives special powers. There is also restriction of money. Since July we have been providing local loans to urban authorities to build houses. The commitments up to the present amount to about £230,000. There is greater activity on the part of urban bodies in the matter of building houses for the working classes at present than there has been at any time since the Acts were passed. Our urban housing problem is a much more insistent one than that in rural districts and we would be well advised to get some idea as to what we will be involved in, in the matter of loans to urban authorities, before we address ourselves to the question of rural authorities. Deputies who quote my phrase on the question of rents are very near the most important point in the whole question. You cannot give local loans in rural districts for housing at the present cost of building and expect to rent the houses at from 1/2 to 1/6 a week. As I have said, the labourers' cottages question can be dealt with in a general Housing Bill. There are certain restrictions on the matter that may be removed even if the Local Loans Fund were not open. That is no reason why this Bill should not be dealt with, as it is now being dealt with, to relieve a definite situation. When you come to deal with towns like Roscrea, the essential to further houses in such towns is the provision of proper sewerage and proper water supply.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Friday, 13th June.