Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Oct 1944

Vol. 95 No. 2

Private Deputies' Business. - Labourers Bill, 1944—Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Corish

A fortnight ago, when the House adjourned, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health delivered a speech on this Bill which the Labour Party are sponsoring. I repeat now what I said then, that I do not think the House ever heard such a lot of unadulterated nonsense as the Minister spoke on that occasion. He started off by saying that Deputy Norton and Deputy Murphy were misleading the House; that they did not disclose the full purport of the Bill or what it would cost the ratepayer or the taxpayer as the case might be. The Minister's speech was a sort of fi-fafum speech. He was trying to frighten Deputies who perhaps had not read the Bill or who may not have been here when Deputy Norton and Deputy Murphy were speaking; people whom, by reason of the fact that there is certain discipline in his Party, the Minister knew he would be able to convince that, so far as the Government is concerned, it would be bad policy to have the Bill passed. The Minister cried salt tears about the ratepayers. Apparently, he is not aware of what is going on in his own Department. He, apparently, does not know that since this emergency started the local authorities have been called upon to raise huge sums through the rates every year in order to deal with an emergency which should have been dealt with directly by the Government. At the present time, in the case of the Wexford Corporation, the ratepayers of that borough are being mulcted to the extent of almost 5/- in the £ in order to finance schemes for the relief of the people. In consequence of the situation which confronts this country, that is a burden that should be borne by the Government itself. The Minister expressed alarm that the ratepayers would be mulcted in a huge sum if this Bill were passed, but neither the Minister nor his Department is so much concerned about the ratepayers, especially the rural ratepayers, when the annuities are not paid by certain people in the rural areas, because his Department has repeatedly stopped huge sums in the way of grants from certain county councils. The withholding of these grants results in higher rates being levied on the people in the county generally, including the people who would benefit under the Bill we are discussing.

The Minister stated that if this Bill were to become law it would be equivalent to the handing over of 10,000 cottages to people for nothing. Now, anybody could make a statement of that kind. I might just as well say that, if the Minister's salary were divided amongst a certain number of people, and if by doing so they were given £2 a week each, it would be a desirable thing for the country. It would probably be a more popular thing to say than what the Minister has said in regard to the 10,000 cottages. I suggest to him that that is not a serious way to deal with a problem of this kind, and I would ask the House to bear in mind that we have here a definite problem to consider. The Minister objected to Deputy Murphy telling the House that the present Labourers Act was a dead letter. I have no hesitation in repeating what Deputy Murphy said, because to all intents and purposes the Act is a dead letter. Even on the Minister's own figures it will be found that only between one-fifth and one-sixth of the people concerned have expressed their intention, in one way or another, of taking advantage of the provisions of the 1936 Act. The Minister also objected to Deputy Murphy saying that he himself did not agree with tenants purchasing their cottages. The Minister said that was a dishonest thing for Deputy Murphy to do. I submit that it was nothing of the kind. I agree with Deputy Murphy that the people would be better off under their present conditions than if they were to buy their cottages either under the 1936 Act or under this measure. Deputy Murphy and I come here to express the views of our constituents — not our own views. There are certain agricultural labourers in the country who are in favour of buying their cottages under a scheme such as this. The Minister said that about 9,000 people have expressed their willingness to purchase labourers' cottages. I wonder if an examination would reveal that all these people are agricultural labourers. Members of the House who are conversant with rural affairs know that there are certain people occupying cottages in rural areas who are not agricultural labourers. They are people who have improved their position. Some of them have got land and some are tradesmen. I do not object to that, but my point is that these people would be in a better position to buy their cottages than the man who is dependent on an agricultural labourer's wage week after week.

The Minister went out of his way in his laudation of Deputy Coburn. I submit that neither the Minister nor Deputy Coburn understands the text of this Bill, which does not propose to take over one single cottage. I refer again to what the Minister said, that the Bill, if passed, would mean that 10,000 cottages would be handed over to people free of charge. The machinery for effecting the sale of cottages is set out in the Bill so that all this talk about confiscation is all nonsense. If it is confiscation, then the same charge can, and should, be levelled against the Bill, which the Government brought in and passed in 1936. In the palmy days of Fianna Fáil their speakers went through the country telling the cottage tenants that they were going to get their cottages for nothing, but then, of course, when Fianna Fáil got into office the whole thing was changed, in this as in other parts of their programme.

The Minister said that if this Bill were to become law it would strip the local authorities of the assets which would arise out of the original investment of £11,000,000. I think the value of this investment to the local authorities may be gauged by the fact that in my native County Wexford the average annual rental for a cottage is £3 9s. 8d., whereas the average cost of repairs is £6 9s. per cottage. That does not mean that all the cottages in the area have been repaired. As a matter of fact, comparatively few cottages have been repaired and month after month at the county council meetings practically all the members are complaining that cottage repairs have not been carried out to the extent to which they should be. In Wicklow the average rental is £4 6s. 4d. and the cost of repairs, in 1942/43, worked out at £6 9s. per cottage. In Tipperary South Riding, the average rental was £3 18s. 11d. and the cost of repairs averaged £12. In Ua bhFáilghe the average rental was £3 17s. 1d. and the repairs averaged £16 10s. 0d.; in Westmeath the average rental was £3 4s. 5d., in the cost of repairs, £20; in Meath, the average rental was £3 4s. 5d., in 1942/43 the cost of repairs averaged £55 4s. 0d. per cottage. In the case of Meath, in respect of a cottage which was repaired in 1942/43 it will take 17 years' rent to repay the cost of these repairs.

In face of these figures I am at a loss to know how the Minister can say that there is anything approaching confiscation. I am perfectly satisfied, and I believe that anybody who is attached to a county council will also be satisfied, that it would be a very good bargain for a county council at the present time to hand over completely all the cottages under their jurisdiction because, if the cottages received year after year the attention they require in so far as repairs are concerned, the liabilities of the county council in this respect would be three or four times greater than the assets accruing to them by way of rent.

The Minister, dealing with the reference made by Deputy Murphy to the fact that in his opinion the 1936 Act was a dead letter, told us that 9,453 cottages had been taken over or were in the act of being taken over. That is about one-sixth of the total number of cottages in this country. I do not think the Minister could accept that or put that forward as an indication of the popularity of that particular Act. The annual amount for repairs varies throughout the country between £115,000 and £150,000 and that really does not meet the bill in respect of repairs, because as everybody who is a county councillor knows, cottage repairs have not been attended to as they should be, especially in recent years. There is, of course, the excuse of the war and shortage of materials but it will be found on examination that even before the war cottage repairs were not attended to as they should be.

As I said at the beginning, the Minister tried to belittle this Bill. He told the House that Deputy Norton and Deputy Murphy did not make the Dáil aware of the true contents of the Bill, that the Bill was a confiscation measure. I remember one time when the Minister would not hedge at a Bill of this kind. I remember when the Minister made promises which would bring about greater confiscation than this Bill proposes. I have no hesitation in recommending this Bill to the House. I believe if Deputies were to examine the position carefully, to examine the liabilities of the county councils in respect of repairs and compare them with the assets accruing to them by way of rent, they would find that it would be a very good bargain for the county councils of Eire if they were to hand over the cottages without any payment at all.

The Minister talks about the extraordinary reduction that is brought about. Surely he is not serious in suggesting that an average of 3½d. per week is an extraordinary reduction when it has to be considered that it takes, on an average, about three times the rental to repair the cottages. A great number of these cottages are old. They are deteriorating rapidly and would require an annual expenditure in order to make them habitable for the people who are going to take them over.

The Minister showed by his statement that he has not the slightest knowledge of the problem, that he does not know a thing about the position of agricultural labourers, that he does not know the condition of the buildings that are under consideration in this Bill. I hope Deputies will not be misled by the statement he made. As I said, his speech was a sort of fi-fafum speech, in which he tried to frighten Deputies, to tell them that the Labour Party were out for confiscation. Of course, his little bit about Moscow and his reference to myself at the end might, of course, get Deputies' backs up, and make them think they were voting against something communistic. As far as Moscow is concerned, the Minister was nearer to Moscow on one occasion than I will ever be.

Mr. Norton

He sent a delegation there once, to get guns.

Mr. Cogan

The Minister in his speech a fortnight ago appealed, I think, to members of this Party, Clann na Talmhan, to come out strongly against this Bill. He sought, I think, to raise the scare that this Bill, if enacted, would impose an increased burden on the local ratepayers. I, as a member of a county council of considerable experience, fail to see how this Bill would increase the burden on local ratepayers. This Bill, if enacted, will reduce the revenue raised by way of rent from the cottage tenants by 50 per cent., but it will relieve the local authorities of the entire burden of the cost of the repair of cottages which, over a period of years, amounted to more than 50 per cent. of the rent. Therefore, on the face of it, I cannot see that any loss will accrue to the local authorities or to the ratepayers.

This is a good and a sound Bill inasmuch as it seeks to do what every progressive person with a Christian outlook is seeking to achieve, that is, to vest in the largest possible number of citizens of the State ownership of their holdings, ownership of at least some portion of the real estate of this country. I think I remember the time when the Minister made the flesh of certain old ladies in Rathmines and Rathgar creep when he talked about the communistic tendencies of the Labour Party. I fail to see anything communistic about this Bill. If any citizen, any member of this House, or any Government were to devise a means to thwart Communism, a more effective means could be devised than to make manual workers in rural Ireland owners of their homes. That is what this Bill sets out to achieve. It will ensure that whatever Government may be in power, or whatever changes may take place in the outlook of our people on social questions, there will be, at least, 50,000 additional small property owners with a stake in the country. That should weigh very deeply with everybody interested in the advancement and development of rural Ireland.

There are aspects of this Bill which require attention. There were aspects of the original Bill which required to be carefully considered in order that the purpose for which rural housing was inaugurated would not be upset. When it was first decided to embark on a policy of providing houses for agricultural workers, the scheme carried with it a definite contract on the part of the State, that people from whom land was required on which it was proposed to build houses, would be safeguarded, inasmuch as they would be assured of workers for their industry. Therefore, a definite bargain was entered into between the State and the farming community. The latter had to make certain concessions so that housing would be provided for their workers. They had to give land in the first place, and had to undertake certain burdens which fell on the rates and taxes but, in return, they were assured they would have the benefit of the services of those who secured houses. It was definitely part and parcel of the original Labour Acts that these houses would be reserved for agricultural workers. As far as I understand the Act of 1936 and this Bill, it is not proposed to upset that arrangement, and I think in no circumstances could it be upset.

This Bill, because of the conditions under which the houses were built, will confer ownership, conditional upon the occupants of cottages being agricultural workers. That arrangement is not upset by the Bill. That is an aspect of this question about which farmers are seriously concerned. There will always be a tendency for a certain number of labourers' cottages to get into the possession of people who are not agricultural workers. I hold that it is a duty imposed on the State to see that that does not happen. In many areas there is a serious dearth of agricultural workers, and if houses which were provided for them, so that they would be available for the agricultural industry, are diverted to some other classes it would be a most undesirable state of affairs. This Bill does not propose to divert these houses to persons other than agricultural workers. Therefore it contains no menace to the farming community. I feel that, while the Bill may not confer a monetary benefit on the tenants, it will confer a social advantage on them. It will tend to raise their status in the community, to make them owners of property, with an interest in that property, and with the right to transfer it to their heirs, provided they are agricultural workers.

While I admit that the cost of repairs when carried out by local authorities has been exceedingly high, I believe that the tenants, when the responsibility is placed on their own shoulders, will carry out such work effectively, perhaps much cheaper and with greater satisfaction. It very frequently happened in the past that when repairs were carried out they were not done to the satisfaction of the occupants. When this Bill is implemented cottage tenants will be in a position to improve their homes as they think fit. Taken in conjunction with the 1936 Act, which it seeks to improve, this Bill will confer a very great benefit on rural Ireland and on the agricultural industry. Some people might be inclined to oppose the Bill on the ground that it might interfere with the further development of housing in rural Ireland. I do not share that view. I think the rent of ? per week outlined in the Bill, that is, 50 per cent of the original rent, which would probably be about 2/6 weekly in most cases, is quite sufficient to finance a proper housing scheme for our agricultural workers.

I hold very strongly that interest charges on money required for housing have always been excessive, and I believe there is no necessity whatever for any interest charge on money which the State requires to finance such a work of national development as housing, where a permanent asset which cannot be destroyed is created within the country. For that reason, I hold that a tenant paying ? per week will repay the entire principal required for the erection of this house within the life of the house. That will ensure that, even though this measure becomes law, housing will still go on, and tenants will be able, with a proper system of finance, to pay the full cost of the housing they require, without placing any burden whatever on either the taxpayer or ratepayer. That is the position which should obtain if the State had not embarked on the peculiar policy of paying excessive interest rates for money which the State itself creates.

In winding up his speech a fortnight ago, the Minister whipped himself into a foaming fury in denouncing what he described as confiscation or expropriation of property, and he asked where this state of affairs was to end if the House were to propose to take property from the local authorities and transfer it to the tenants. The Minister seemed to forget or to ignore the fact that local authorities are part and parcel of the State, and we have the Minister trying to raise a scare about the State taking property from itself and handing it over to independent citizens. There is no danger to be feared in a policy which leads to the State owning less property than it owns at present, and that is simply what the Bill proposes. It proposes that 50,000 or 60,000 acres of land, with the houses, should, instead of being the property of the State, become the property of individual tenants. Does anyone think that these tenants of labourers' cottages are such powerful magnates that, having secured this concession, they will set out to grasp more and more property? That is what the Minister seemed to imply by his loud-voiced cries of alarm.

I am far more enthusiastic about the Bill than those who propose it. I believe it is a good measure. It is a sound idea to make the owners of labourers' cottages masters in their own homes. It will impose no burden on anybody and will confer an immense benefit on the community. It will confer a social advantage and will strengthen our nation in every possible way. The more people there are firmly entrenched in possession of property, the more independent our nation will be and the less servile the entire community will be to the State, which is an aim for which we should strive. I congratulate the Labour Party on bringing forward this Bill. The Minister claims that the Labour Party is tainted with Communism. The Labour Party, for all I know, may be red as a ripe tomato, but there is nothing red about this Bill. It is a sound measure, and I regard it as a healthy sign that the representatives of Labour should bring forward a measure of the kind.

Mr. O'Leary

I should like to see the agricultural labourers becoming the owners of their cottages, but I should like to know if Deputies speak with one voice here and with another at their county council meetings at home. There are village schemes of cottages for which the people, who are agricultural labourers, are paying 3/2 and 3/6 per week. Last February, I asked the Wexford County Manager for a reduction in the rents of these houses. I was strongly opposed by Deputy Corish who now supports this Bill. Deputy Corish then said that a 50 per cent. reduction on these village scheme houses would put another £1,728 on the rates. Are these people in these village scheme houses who are only agricultural labourers to get no benefit? Only the people who have houses for 9d. are included in the Bill. The new houses will be 2/6 per week, while the village scheme houses are 3/6 per week. Many of the people who occupy these houses are very poor, and, if they got possession of their houses to-morrow, would probably be unable to keep them in repair. Some may be better off than others, but the majority are poor, and would be unable to keep them in repair if they were handed over to them by the local authority. It is all very well for Deputies to come here and make speeches about housing and then oppose a motion to reduce rents in their own counties. I do not believe for one minute that the Labour Party is honest in introducing this Bill.

Mr. Corish

You are an honest man.

Mr. O'Leary

I am more honest than you are anyway. The people gave you your answer.

Mr. Corish

They will give it to you next time, and if they had known that you were going to twist so quickly they might have given it to you.

An Ceann Comhairle

What about the Bill?

Mr. O'Leary

I do not believe in people who are not sincere, who make speeches in the Dáil and then go to the meeting of the Wexford County Council and oppose a proposal for the reduction of rents for any section of the people. I do not regard such people as honest men, and that is why I do not agree with the speeches of these Deputies. Deputy Cogan is silent on this aspect, too, and it may be for vote-catching purposes in County Wicklow.

Probably if he had a half-acre and a man was looking for it, the man would have to go into court to get it, just as happens in connection with the additional half-acre. People on the land are very fond of the land. According to our county manager, I believe that any cottier at the moment can take possession of his house. On some of them the annuity is nearly paid — there are only about eight years to go. The vast majority of the people, as I say, probably will not take over the houses if this Bill goes through, because they will not be able to keep them in repair. An agricultural labourer with £1 19s. 6d. per week very often will not be able to pay a tradesman to put on a slate.

Gearóid Mac Phárthaláin

Ní thuigim tuige go bhfuil an Bille seo dá thabhairt isteach ag an am seo. Bfhéidir nach dtuigim i gceart an scéal mar atá sé i gCúige Laighean. Do réir mar fheicimse é i gCúige Chonnacht, má tá aon, bhuntáiste airgid le scaipeadh ag an Roinn, b'fhearr tithe nua a chur ar fáil do dhaoine bochta ins na sráid-bhailte agus ins na bailte móra. Is é mo thuairim féin nach bhfuil aon luach ar airgead sa tír níos fearr ná ceann de na tithe seo ar leathchoróin sa tseachtain, cíos agus airgead acraí dá gcomhaireamh sa méid sin. Bhí cuid de na daoine seo ag íoc ceithre scilleacha nó coróin roimhe seo ar shean-tithe gan áit luasgtha chait iontu go minic. Féach na daoine in aiteacha mar Ghaillimh ag íoc sé scilleacha agus suas go dti seacht agus sé pingne sa tseachtain. Tá sé ceart go leor faoi láthair nuair atá airgead fairsing ach béidir go mbeadh a mhalairt de scéal ann i ndiaidh na tréimhse práinne.

Tá scéim ceannachta ann cheana atá sáthach maith, agus má tá airgead le spáráil ag an Aire, b'fheárr liomsa i bhfad é a fheiceáil á chaitheamh le tuille tithe a sholáthar do na daoine bochta faoin dtuaith agus ins na bailte móra atá go dian ina dtuilleamaí.

Mr. Corry

The last time a Labourers Bill was before this House practically every Deputy was anxious that the terms of purchase should be a bit more generous as regards the agricultural labourers. But the question I am anxious to deal with now is the optional clause in the present Bill, which leaves it optional with the local authority to fix an even smaller reduction than the 25 per cent. Recently here I had to bring certain matters in connection with non-municipal houses built by the South Cork Board of Health to the attention of this House. The rent of these houses was fixed by people who had at first opposed by every means in their power the building of any houses at all.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will they be affected by this Bill?

Mr. Corry

I am dealing with the reductions to be given under the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

As a matter of information, will the houses to which the Deputy refers come within the ambit of this Bill?

Mr. Corry

Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle

Then the Deputy may proceed.

Mr. Corry

The board fixed the rent at 8/- per week and the matter was then referred to the Local Government Department with a protest from us that the sum fixed was even greater than the economic rent. The matter was sent back by the Local Government Department and these gentlemen then fixed the rent at 7/9 per week, plus rates. The people concerned, having no hope of owning their little homes under that scheme, applied for a purchase scheme, and a special scheme was brought in by the board giving those people, not a reduction of 25 per cent. which this House intended should be granted under the Labourers Act for all purchases, but a reduction of 10 per cent. When speaking on this matter in this House previously I asked the Minister if he would send that purchase scheme back to the board for reconsideration and readjustment. It has not since come back. As the House is now considering a proposal for a reduction of 50 per cent. in this present Bill, I am anxious that at least the conditions that this House allowed by the former Act should apply to these unfortunate tenants and that they should get the full benefit of the legislation.

I think this is a favourable opportunity to appeal again to the Minister to arrange, in justice to these unfortunate tenants, that the purchase scheme, fixing their reductions at only 10 per cent. instead of 25 per cent. in the present legislation, be sent back to the local authorities for readjustment, so that those people will get the benefit of the reduction that this House intended for them.

General MacEoin

This Bill proposes to confer substantial benefits upon what might be described as the weakest section of the community. The Labour Party made the mistake of not carrying out a bit of propaganda before they introduced the Bill.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

They are not too late.

General MacEoin

They are long enough in the House to remember that when the Government were proposing to introduce the 1936 Act there was a big splash in the Irish Press, the Irish Independent and the Irish Times about making the labourer for the first time the owner of his home, and they set out all they were going to do for him. Of course, the General Election of 1937 was coming. But there they stopped. When the Labour Party were introducing this Bill, I think they should have taken a little leaf from the Government's copybook, and they should have carried out a little propaganda on behalf of this measure.

I am in favour of the principle of making the labourer the owner of his home. There is an Act already in existence, and it is argued by the supporters of this Bill that it has prevented that principle being given effect to. I do not know that if you reduce it to 50 per cent. the labourers will take it either. If they would, I think the Government should accept it no matter what the cost may be.

There are two or three points that the promoters of this Bill should have paid some attention to, points that should have been covered by some section. In every county you have a number of cottage rent collectors. If you reduce the rents by 50 per cent. you automatically reduce the warrants by 50 per cent. Assume for a moment that every labourer buys out his home. Automatically the rates are taken away from the rents. At the moment the rents and rates are collected together. If this Bill were to become law you will reduce the warrant by so much. What are you to do with the rent collectors? What scheme have you for them? They have rights just as well as the cottage owners. Notwithstanding the Government's White Paper, which we have before us, I submit that a case has not been made. We should examine this thing thoroughly, and a plebiscite or referendum should be held, asking the cottage tenants what they want.

Mr. MacEntee

Would the Deputy amend the Constitution for that purpose?

General MacEoin

Yes, just as you would do it; if you felt that something should be done, you would not be behindhand in doing that. Everybody seems to think that he can talk for the cottage tenants. I know as much about them as any person in this country, but I would not attempt to suggest that I was the sole custodian of their rights — that I could speak for them. I do know that it would be a very sound principle if every cottage tenant was the owner of his home, and he is as well entitled to that ownership as a tenant farmer is. You would give the cottage tenants stability; you give them a sense of private ownership, and that will make for stability.

Against that you may argue that you are imposing on the tenants an obligation and an onus they are not prepared to undertake. Reading some of the arguments against the Land Acts, one finds that the very same argument was made at the time that legislation was being considered. People were told that if they made the Irish farmer the owner of his home they were going to place an obligation on him of doing the drainage on his land and carrying out repairs — doing all the work that the landlord used to do for him. They were told that for that reason he should not be permitted to become the owner of his home. Notwithstanding all those arguments, the Irish tenant farmers insisted on becoming the owners of their farms and I think it would be a sound principle to assist the cottage tenants to become the owners of their homes.

As regards the 50 per cent. of the existing rents, it may be argued that it is too much to ask the local authorities to carry the burden and, on the other hand, it is argued that it is too much to ask the tenant to carry it. You cannot have it both ways. If the tenant is anxious to purchase his holding, my view is that he should be allowed to do so at 50 per cent. Make him the owner of his home and when you have that done you will have given the labourer the right to property, and dear knows it is time. For a long time he has been left unconsidered.

Notwithstanding the splash made by Fianna Fáil in 1936 about making the labourer the owner of his home, they are now resisting the proposal and appear anxious to leave him without any opportunity of becoming the owner. What is the view of the Government? Are they going to resist or accept this Bill? If they are going to resist it, the obligation is on them to show in a very positive way why they are resisting it and why they have run away from the promise they made the labourers in 1936.

Mr. MacEntee

I should like to clarify the position. I assume that as this is the Second Reading of the Bill the three hours' limitation on debate does not apply here.

An Ceann Comhairle

It does not apply.

Mr. MacEntee

May I say that it is quite obvious Deputy MacEoin did not read the report of the proceedings when this Bill was last under consideration, because otherwise he would have observed the excellent reasons of the Government why it should not be accepted?

General MacEoin

I read the Irish Press.

Mr. Childers

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned until to-morrow.

Mr. MacEntee

I presume the same arrangement will apply to-morrow? Of course, the business for to-morrow is a matter for consideration to-morrow and I do not know what arrangement the Whips may come to with regard to the Government time-table. We made this special arrangement because of the prolonged debates on the Transport Bill. With the Arterial Drainage Bill coming along, it might not be the intention of the Government to continue the arrangement.

An Ceann Comhairle

We will know to-morrow.