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.