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.