On the 27th November last we heard about the Labourers Bill. Now, nearly six months have passed, and in a most remarkable way the dust has to be taken off the Minister's papers and off ours in order to discuss the matter to-day. When we dealt with the matter last month the Minister and his backers in the country took exception to some of the words used here. I think it is important that the Minister would clear away any misconception there was at that particular time, and deal here now with what this Bill is going to cost the State and to some extent indicate what it is going to pay for that cost. On the Second Reading Stage I described this Bill as the raising of the curtain on the third act of the great Fianna Fáil swindle. The Minister considered that I hardly knew what the word "swindle" does mean or might mean, or even if I did not, there was very little excuse for my using the language I used at the time.
On the barely financial side of things, I would like to bring this to the notice of the Minister—a committee was set up in November, 1932. It was understood that there was six months' work in front of it. On the 13th of January, 1933, after I expect a general election had been declared, we all read in the columns of the Irish Press, and in the Irish Press alone, an elaborate statement as to what the interim report, said to have been issued by the committee, contained. We read therein what the report set out could be done for 42,000 people; we read that in the columns of the Irish Press on the 13th January, 1933. The two other Dublin papers and the Cork Examiner were only able to get that report on the 14th of January, but the members of the Dáil never got an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the document that was then called an ad interim report. However, what we are now concerned with is what the ad interim report contained. According to the Irish Press that report stated: “Rents are to be reduced by 25 per cent., payable quarterly instead of weekly to save collection expenses”; and it stated that the rates were to be relieved to the extent of £50,000, while the cottier tenants would benefit to the extent of £32,000, and that the scheme proposed by the commission was one “which would not impose any further charge on the State.”
In the first place, the House wants to get some kind of clear information from the Minister as to whether this measure before us is intended to relieve the tenants of £32,000 a year; whether it is expected to relieve the local authorities or the ratepayers of £50,000 a year, or whether it is expected to put no charge on the State? Anybody who knows anything on the subject will agree that the tenants cannot be relieved to the extent mentioned, and that the local authorities cannot be relieved to the extent mentioned, without putting an increased burden on the State. We would like to know from the Minister what increased burden, if any, is to be borne by the State as a result of this measure being put into operation, and what other expenses are going to arise as a result of it. If the Minister cannot make this measure in its working out live up to the statements that were so prominently and enthusiastically published on the 13th of January, 1933, then all that has been done up to the present in connection with the promises and hopes held out to the cottage tenants is nothing but a gigantic Fianna Fáil swindle. Before proceeding with the Committee Stage, I think we should have a full explanation of the financial implications and proposals of this Bill.
