I moved the adjournment of the debate, but I should like, with the permission of the House, to reserve the right to reply later if the occasion seems opportune and to allow the debate to proceed.
Private Deputies Business. - Labourers Bill, 1944—Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."—(Deputy Norton).
I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary is not quite in order in suggesting that. That procedure applies only to a Deputy formally seconding a motion. I think that, when the Parliamentary Secretary moved the adjournment of the debate, he is still in possession.
In connection with this debate, there has been little fresh argument adduced since the Minister made the main reply in connection with the Labourers Bill. The whole question is based on the controversy as to whether the rates should be increased to subsidise further the purchase of cottages. It is on that that the whole debate depends. I did not hear, in the course of the debate, any argument made to suggest that the present terms under the 1936 Act are not adequate, having regard to all the circumstances. If the rates are to be increased for housing and have to be used for this purpose, or if we are to place a burden on the ratepayers, might there not be other purposes for which it would be more suitable, particularly at the present time? I should like to reiterate at this stage some figures in connection with cottage purchase schemes. In this connection I would remind the House that 9,453 applications had been made for schemes at the time that this debate started. Of those, 3,468 had actually been vested according to the reports we have received. The principal reason for the delay in vesting is due to the fact that it has been found difficult to ascertain the site: that is, to transfer the site legally from the county council to the purchaser of the cottage. Some figures for the individual counties are interesting in connection with the plea made that the present terms of the Act are not fair or just to agricultural labourers.
I have made a list of the counties in which, in respect of over 25 per cent. cottages, applications have been made for purchase. In the remainder of the counties the percentage is less than 25, and when I give that figure I mean approximately 25 per cent. These counties are as follows:—In Cavan, 75 per cent. of the cottages had applications from tenants for purchase— that is, 75 per cent. of the whole number. Of that 75 per cent., the vast majority have been vested, and all the difficulties that appear in other counties in carrying out the full terms of the Labourers Act have been satisfactorily settled. One may ask, what is peculiar about Cavan, and why have so many of the schemes been successful there? Cavan is certainly not a wealthy county, or a county where the occupiers of cottages would consider that the terms for them at any rate are satisfactory. If you take other counties like Leitrim, Galway, Longford, Monaghan, Roscommon, Tipperary and Louth, all of these were ahead of others in the preparation of cottages from which applications had been made for purchase. There is nothing that connects those counties. They represent varied areas. Some of them are wealthy, others are less wealthy. Leitrim, for example, is a very poor county, one of the poorest counties in Ireland. Its record in regard to the 1936 Act is more satisfactory than that of many richer counties with higher valuations, counties in which the agricultural labourers would have a more stable existence and a higher average rate of wages. It does suggest, however, that whatever deficiencies there may be in the operation of the scheme, it is not the burden placed on the purchaser. Whatever else it is, it is not that.
I should like to advert to some of the difficulties we have experienced in carrying out the terms of the 1936 Act. First of all, it appears that the legal ownership of the site is in doubt in many instances, and that in certain areas that particular work progresses more quickly than in others. In other counties difficulties have been faced and will have to be faced for some time to come, in carrying out the section of the Act which demands that a cottage must be put into a complete and final state of repair before the purchase is effected and before the annuity starts to be paid.
That is a difficulty that the House will realise will continue for some considerable time. Another difficulty that we have had in popularising the Act is due to the fact that large numbers of tenants of those cottages are not aware of the rule whereby cottages must be placed in such a complete state of repair and believe that they will not only have to bear the cost of repairs in future, but will have to bear the cost of those repairs taking account of the fact that the cottages will only be in that average state of repair in which such cottages are found, and that there will be no effort made to place the cottages in a complete state of repair before they take over occupation.
I should like now to analyse the criticisms which we have received since 1936 in the carrying out of this Act. We went through the observations made by the boards of health. Of course, the boards of health were principally engaged in studying the provisions of this Act before the coming into office of the county managers. In the case of 14 out of 29 boards of health, no objections were sustained whatever to the terms of the Act—to the terms under which schemes were likely to be prepared. Those 14 counties included again a miscellaneous group of counties, by no means all counties of high valuations in which agricultural labourers would be better placed than in other counties. In 15 out of 29 boards of health we received objections. Of the 15, there were 45 objections in respect of individual cottages, and 20 group objections in connection with groups of cottages. The majority of the objections came from Carlow and Kildare. A very large number of the objections related to the question of repairs, the question as to whether or not the cottage would be placed in a state of complete repair. There, again, there was some misunderstanding on the part of boards of health. There have been observations in regard to repairs made both during the discussions on the Bill in 1936, now the Labourers Act of 1936, and since in the discussions on this Bill. The statement has been made that, added to the annuity, there should be a sum to repay the annual cost of repairs by the tenant purchaser. It has been suggested that our estimate for the annual cost of repairs is too high.
There again we have to adopt some basic year in which to consider this matter, but taking the matter generally, I think it can be said that the high cost of repairs has some relation to the character of administration in certain counties. It has some relation to the extent to which the tenant's obligation to retain his cottage in good condition was enforced by certain authorities—about which many members of this House have some knowledge. It has certain relation to the fact that in certain counties repairs were allowed to pile up and as they piled up the cost became geometrically increased; whereas, if there had been a system of regular and continuous inspection in those areas, the apparent high cost of repairs to county councils would have turned out to be much less.
The last point on this aspect I want to make is an obvious one to those who have done housework and odd jobs at home, in the nature of carpentry; it is that the person who does such work in his own cottage can do it much more cheaply than it can be done for him by a local authority. Having regard to that, I do not believe that the cost of repairs, to a person who has purchased a cottage under this scheme, would be so high—that is, when added to an annuity, that it would be imposing an injustice on him.
Reverting again to the general problem, if the annuities as at present paid are too high, then there is some case for the Bill. If the annuities are not too high, we must ask ourselves why we should saddle ratepayers with this new obligation. As the Minister has said, the obligation will amount to a considerable amount of money in each year, it causes no increase of employment, it is utterly unproductive and purely negative in character, and it does nothing to improve our national economy. We should ask ourselves this question because of the very high rates that obtain all over the country for social services, housing, and other amenities, in order that we may ascertain whether it is right to impose this fresh burden. I should remind the House, that in the case of the pre-1922 houses the average annuity was 10½d a week, and in the case of the post-1922 houses, it was ? a week. I simply cannot believe that these sums were excessive, having regard to all the circumstances.
In addition to that, the tenants of cottages pay at the moment only 14 per cent. of the loan charges for their construction in respect of cottages up to those built under the 1932 Acts, I want to give the figures, as they enable us to see the problem from a particular point of view. In the case of the labourers' cottages built prior to 1906, the loan charges are borne by the tenants to the degree of 14 per cent., while 26 per cent. is carried by the State and 60 per cent. by the local authority. That 60 per cent. borne by local authorities has already been regarded as a very heavy charge by those authorities and even by persons who represent the interests of agricultural labourers and desire to make a considerable contribution to housing development. They regarded that contribution as extremely high. In the case of cottages built subsequent to 1906, the tenants paid 14 per cent., the State 36 per cent. and the local authorities 50 per cent. Then we come to the cottages built under the 1932 Acts. Here the loan charge borne by the tenant has been reduced to the very small figure of 7 per cent., the State pays 60 per cent. and the local authority pays 33 per cent. That has been the position in connection with cottages rented by local authorities prior to the period when a labourer would consider taking over the cottage under the 1936 Act.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary answer one question? Is it not a fact that the loan charges incurred previous to the Treaty were wiped out in a Financial Circular?
That has nothing to do with it. I am giving an indication of the comparative charges. Next we must consider whether the proposed annuity represents an unfair proportion of an agricultural labourer's wages, and I would like to give the House some figures showing how the position has altered since we have achieved independence. It has been reckoned that the wage of an agricultural labourer in 1914 was approximately 14/- a week. That is a figure which I personally could not stand over, but certainly I do not think it was more than that.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary sure it was not less?
I do not think it was as much. The average rent of cottages occupied at the time was 1/0 ½, or 8 per cent. of the average wage. In 1944 the minimum wage, as the House knows, was 40/- a week. The rent of a pre-1922 cottage, as a percentage of 1944 wages, was 2.7 per cent. The annuity under the 1936 Act of a pre-1922 cottage was 2.2 per cent., the annuity a person would pay under present circumstances. In the case of post-1922 cottages, the rent as a percentage of 1944 wages would be 5.7 per cent. and in the case of annuities under the 1936 Act they would be 4.5 per cent.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary complete that and give us his idea of the relation of purchasing power to wages in the periods he is dealing with? I do not think the point he is making is conclusive without that.
That was actually relating it to income as it is up to the present.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary give us the all-important figure in the series he is now quoting, that is, the relative purchasing power of wages over the two periods?
I do not think there need be any comparison for the purpose of my argument. The point I am making is that, under present circumstances, most sociological students regard the figure of 8 per cent. as the relation of rent to wages as being reasonable. No matter what studies you make, or theories you may have about housing, or subsidies of rent by the State, you will find that many countries consider it a very good thing if they can get the rent as a percentage of wages down to 8 per cent., by one means or another, by efficient building, by subsidies or by whatever means is considered desirable.
That is a pre-war figure, of course.
The fact is that we have at the present time, under the Labourers Act, 1936, a percentage of annuity to wages of 4.5 per cent.; this cannot be considered unreasonable, even having regard to the present cost of living or to what money would buy now. This Act is one which gives certain opportunities to agricultural labourers—generally speaking, agricultural labourers as a class—to purchase their houses.
Therefore, if we are to argue the justice of the terms under the Act, we should advert to the general position of agricultural labourers. No Government should be easy about their status, their remuneration or their circumstances; but in relation to what can be done with ratepayers' money or with moneys voted by this House, a great effort has been made in the last ten years, during the time since this Act has come into operation, to assist that particular section of the community. As I have said, they pay only 7 per cent. of the loan charges on these cottages, they derive benefit from all the multifarious social services, they have a minimum wage, they derive benefit from services such as old age pensions, unemployment assistance, widows' and orphans' pensions, and, recently, the Children's Allowance Act, the coming into operation of which is of great benefit to them. They have all sorts of opportunities in connection with legislation, such as the Seeds and Fertilisers Act, they get employment in the winter in connection with land improvement schemes and large sums are spent every year in relief works. Very many of them every year, before the war, were being given one-acre plots, to enable them to have some sort of subsistence for themselves in respect of certain commodities. Although this Government would like to do more for this section of the community, and no doubt will do more in the future, so far as the national income permits, the question arises as to the best way of doing it. I myself would prefer to spend £135,000 from the rates on something that was productive of results, something that would in future help people who still require assistance.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Government wish to encourage ratepayers to spend £135,000 per year in connection with housing. I believe that the vast majority of this House would say that, having regard to the enormous cost of building material after the war, if the ratepayers were to be asked to bear that burden it would be far better to bear it in connection with subsidies on the rent of new housing schemes, housing schemes built with materials which will be costly for many years after the war; that it would be better to spend money, if the money is to be spent by the ratepayers, on better houses with more amenities.
But, whatever we would do with such a sum, having regard to all the circumstances it is not considered desirable to spend it on reducing the annuity charge, which we think is reasonable. We believe that agricultural labourers who generally desire to purchase their houses have been applying for inclusion in this scheme and will continue to do so provided they are not misled by persons who have persuaded them that they can obtain better terms. I think, having regard to the whole position of housing in this country, that the terms are not unreasonable and that to ask the ratepayers to incur a further burden would be unreasonable, and that is why the Government is rejecting the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary has apparently made some attempt to get a picture of the true position with regard to this Bill and with regard to labourers and labourers' cottages. He has not been very successful. He talked in rather a patronising way about the whole matter. He talked about all that is being done for the agricultural labourers—all the provision that has been made for them. If they have been so well looked after, it is extraordinary that there are so few of them, unfortunately, in the country to-day when the farmers find it impossible in practically every county to get anything like the agricultural labour that is essential to the carrying out of their work. The Parliamentary Secretary talked about putting a burden on the ratepayers. I think most members of this House who are members of local authorities will admit that it would pay the ratepayers to hand over the cottages free to the tenants provided they could hand them over at the same time all the liabilities in connection with them. The Parliamentary Secretary said, in reply to Deputy Davin, that it has nothing to do with the matter. He talked about the percentage of wages in 1914, 1922 and 1932. He talked about sociological students. He said that people in Dublin and other cities looked upon 8 per cent. of their incomes as a resonable sum to pay by way of rent. That may be so. It is much easier for a man with £1,000 a year to pay 8 per cent. of it for rent and still have sufficient to provide for everything else than for a man with 14/- a week to pay 2 per cent. and provide all the other necessaries for his household.
I do not think that that argument is very sound. Money was provided for the building of these cottages. A certain scheme was set up for the repayment of that money, and certain people were to repay different portions of it. It was paid to the local authorities and then into the Local Loans Funds. We know what happened to the Local Loans Funds under the Financial Agreement. All that money is now being used for ordinary revenue purposes. I should like to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary, in the course of all the investigations he made into this matter, tried to ascertain what was the average amount per cottage for repairs in the various counties, say, for the 15 or 20 years prior to the passing of the 1936 Act. Was it 10 per cent., 20 per cent., or 100 per cent. of the rent paid by the tenants?
Or more than 100 per cent.
It is 130 per cent. in Meath.
I am asking for the average. That is a figure that the Parliamentary Secretary did not look for, or if he looked for it and got it, he did not think it advisable to give it to us to-night. The fact is that those cottages were not built entirely for the well-being or for the sake of the agricultural labourers. They were built, and the cost was contributed to by the ratepayers and others, because it was essential to the carrying on of the main industry of this country that houses should be provided in the rural areas for the men whose services were required on the land. The Parliamentary Secretary might as well argue that, in industrial Britain, when large corporations, or industrial firms, or big employers set out to build houses close to their works for those employed in them out of their own money that they were doing it for the sake of the men and not for the sake of the works. There is something more important and essential than whether 7d. or 9d. per week is to be paid. We will have to do a lot more than is proposed in this Bill if we are to keep in the rural areas the men who are essential to the carrying on of the agricultural industry.
The Parliamentary Secretary talked about £2 per week. There are farmers listening to him. Is he aware that farmers, farmers' sons, and agricultural labourers, if they are lucky enough to be able to get a pair of working boots to-day, will have to pay from £3 5s. to £4 for them? They will be fortunate, after paying that, if within one month or a fortnight the water is not running through them. What is the use of talking about 40/- or 20/- or 14/-? Is it not what the money is able to purchase that really matters? I put it to the House that we are dealing with more than the question of whether it should be 7d., 9d. or 1/- per week. A few pence do not matter very much. The all-important matter is to keep on the land the people whose services are absolutely essential to the working of the land to the best advantage. That is the way in which this Bill should be approached. The Parliamentary Secretary stated with a certain amount of pride that 25 per cent., and over 25 per cent. in some counties, had applied under the Act for the purchase of their cottages. He gave a figure of over 9,000 applications to purchase. Is that the figure?
9,453.
9,453 in nine years or 1,000 per year out of a total of 62,000 cottages. Is not that figure in itself an indication to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is something wrong with the present scheme?
It would be finished in 62 years.
Assuming for a moment that the Parliamentary Secretary is not the owner of his own house, if he were given the opportunity of purchasing his house on favourable terms, would he not purchase it? He certainly would. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that the fact that only 1,000 persons per year purchased their houses may be due to the fact that they did not understand the repair clause of the Act or because of certain agitation. But remember that it was very much to the advantage of certain people in this country to see that these people did purchase their cottages because some people were making very good money out of it.
The approach made to this question this evening by the Parliamentary Secretary is refreshing. It was a reasoned attempt to justify the proposals of the Government and their refusal to accept what we consider the reasonable proposals of this Bill. It is eminently a measure that calls for reasoned consideration, apart from political heat. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his speech which is in direct contrast to the wild approach by the Minister, when he had occasion to deal with the matter. It is not going to advance the interests of anybody to bandy charges of dishonesty against the promoters of this measure, accusing them of being half-way to Russia. The lurid pictures painted by the Minister were so much waste of time, and a diversion of the attention of Deputies from what should be a reasoned consideration of a very reasonable measure.
The question of the housing of labourers in rural areas is not by any means a new one. It is a very old question. I remember the agitation was particularly acute in Southern Ireland when labourers sought the right of citizenship-the right at least to own their own homes. The Parliamentary Secretary painted a fine picture of the good conditions they enjoy. I suggest that the best of these conditions were given to them by an alien Government. These houses were built, as Deputy Morrissey has said, by an alien Government, and, for reasons of their own, they gave them at a very low rent to the agricultural labourers, a rent that they would be able to pay. They were subsidised from various channels. That was done for the purpose of preserving the labour content to do the agricultural business of this country which is essentially agricultural and will continue to be so.
The labourers, incidentally, have carried the banner in the fight for the farmers of this country, to break landlordism. It will not be denied by anybody who has studied that period, that the best part of that fight was made by the agricultural labourers, who had nothing to gain, but who out of a sense of loyalty tried to rescue their employers from landlordism.
It came very badly from the Minister to make a direct appeal to the farmer representatives in this House that they should be the first people who should turn down these mad proposals of the Labour Party in asking for a 50 per cent. reduction. I am quite sure the farmer representatives in this House are not unmindful of the fight that was made, and I am sure that they would be very slow to respond to that appeal that has been made to them by the Minister.
The Government have admitted that it would be a good thing that the cottiers should buy their houses out. It was the Government that was responsible for the setting up of the commission that inquired into this matter and which reported after a considerable time. Eventually, after some few years, effect was given to their report in this Bill. Thereby, the Government committed themselves to the principle that it is a good thing for the cottages to pass into the ownership of the tenants. There was a clamour from the county councils and boards of health throughout the length and breadth of the country that these cottages should be taken off their hands because they were an incubus on the ratepayers year after year, in meeting the charges for repair. In most counties, as was stated by the Parliamentary Secretary, adequate repairs were not being carried out. In some places repairs had not been carried out for 10, 12 and 15 years. Other councils had a greater sense of their responsibility. I have a very clear recollection of going as an emissary on behalf of the Limerick County Council to the Department of Local Government to ask for some assistance in the repairing of the cottages, I was rightly told by the Secretary to the Department of Local Government that one brass penny he would not advance to the Limerick County Council because the previous year they had estimated the cost of repairing the houses at £12,000; they had not spent one shilling of the £12,000 and, in the following year, they struck an estimate of £6,000 to do the work that 12 months before had been estimated to cost £12,000. The houses had been deteriorating in the meantime and instead of £18,000, they struck an estimate of £6,000.
I was shown the figures in the Custom House, and was satisfied that they were perfectly correct. I reported back to the county council what I had been told, namely, that the houses are national property; the county councils are only the landlords in trust, and they are bound to keep their property in proper repair, and if they do not keep it in proper repair they could be sued for it. I reported that I had pointed out to the Custom House that the tenants of Limerick were not unaware of that, and had sued the county council, that they had been fined from £25 to £30; that immediately that happened, the county council, vindictively, and under the terms of the existing law, sought possession of the cottage, for no other reason than that the tenant had utilised his powers as a citizen to go into court. They came immediately and asked for possession. The justice had to grant possession. I have seen these people evicted for trying to assert their rights. Having got a decree in one court, they were evicted in the next court. The Minister is very well aware of that.
I am not. I am very doubtful of the facts. I am very doubtful about the whole proceeding.
I can name the tenants. I personally followed one case into five courts.
They were evicted solely because——
The Minister sees fit to interrupt. I can prove what I say.
I am trying to answer the Deputy.
I want to educate the Minister in case he might not be aware of what is happening.
That is a shocking job.
Is the Minister aware that his county manager in Clare has evicted a family in Parteen, and that they have been sleeping in a stable since November—a man and his wife and eight children? They have not undressed since November.
What has that to do with the Bill?
It was done by the action of your manager. I have been in the Department of Local Government and reported the circumstances personally and by 'phone. The Minister cannot profess to be unaware of it. What was the reason? It is the very reason that I have stated in a general way. This man, Lowe, had taken an action against the county council for failure to repair his cottage. They condemned the cottage, evicted him and demolished the cottage and put him sleeping in a stable. They have built a new cottage and up to last week, anyhow, he has not got the cottage.
That shook you.
No.
I can give you the details.
I am perfectly certain it is a garbled version of the facts.
Mr. Morrissey
On a point of order. I wish to ask if that remark made by the Minister is in order. The Minister says deliberately that he is perfectly certain that the Deputy's version is garbled.
The word "garbled" is hardly parliamentary. The version may be correct or one-sided.
Mr. Morrissey
It is quite clear that the Minister is accusing the Deputy.
We have two Ceann Comhairles now.
I am submitting with all respect that the word is not parliamentary.
The word "garbled" is not parliamentary.
Let the Minister do the decent thing and withdraw.
I am not going to believe—I do not care what Deputy makes the allegation in this House— that any county manager would act in the inhuman way in which Deputy Keyes has alleged the commissioner administering the affairs of the Clare County Council has acted.
It is quite possible that there would be two sides to a story. It is quite possible that Deputy Keyes might not have the full story, but it is a different thing to allege that he had a garbled version of it.
I can assure you, Sir, that I am one of the men in this House who would be very slow to make charges against responsible officials in the country without having substantiation for it. I am making my statement from a reading of Mr. O'Keeffe's letter. He stated in the letter to the solicitor: "The tenant has his rights, and I have mine." The solicitor travelled from Limerick to interview him, and was given no hearing. I have seen that in typescript. I have copies of it at home. I have seen the representations made by the curate, the rent collector, and by the solicitor to the county manager. His reply was: "The tenant has his rights and I have mine." If the Minister has any further suggestion that I am pulling the long bow or garbling the story, he can check up on it in the Custom House files. I spoke to Mr. Barrington; he got in touch with the Parliamentary Secretary's office, and the facts are well known in the Custom House. If the Minister is unaware of them, I am surprised.
I have pursued one of those cases in five courts in Limerick, where a man with a 1916 record was evicted by the Limerick Board of Health. They subsequently got him evicted by the district justice. That is one of the reasons why the tenants are so anxious to get the right of ownership. Through all those years, there has been a perfectly clear indication of the desire of the tenants to become owners of their own homes. It is not through any petulance on their part that they are refusing to accept the terms of the Act as passed. The economics of the scheme make it impossible for them to accept. I come back again to the cost of repairs. The Parliamentary Secretary said when he was speaking that in many cases the county council allowed the repairs to pile up. I agree with him, that when repairs pile up they become more costly than if they had been attended to regularly.
I am aware that one general repair is to be given under the Acts before handing over to the tenants, but they are to be fully responsible from that on; the public authorities are to be relieved of any further cost in connection with the repair of the houses. Take the inadequate figure which has been spent over all the counties, putting the good with the bad, and then ask what is going to be the cost of the repairs in the future. Some of the houses are 40 years old; some of them are more than that. Some of them are well built; some of them are badly built: It is a fair assumption that they will not appreciate—that their cost of maintenance and repair will be more in the future. There is to be 15/- a year relief given, which is supposed to keep the cottages in repair. The huge, shocking proposal of the Labour Party would give them an average of 30/- a year. Is there anything terribly abnormal in that proposal? Is there anything to justify the charge of Russianism and Communism and sequestering of public property? That is really the kernel of this Bill, as against the existing Act. There are some other details which have been referred to, but the kernel of the matter boils down to 25 per cent. as against 50 per cent.
I do suggest that the Government ought gladly to accept the 50 per cent. proposal. Since their Act of 1936, which became law early in 1937, one in seven is the figure representing the applications to purchase under the tenure of the Act. How many years is it going to take to complete the purchase of labourers' cottages? All through the intervening years, the public authorities will continue to bear this burden. If you consult the county councils, I would say without fear of contradiction that they would say: "Take the cottage and give it to the labourer; give it to him free and it will be a saving to our ratepayers." The Minister has referred to 10,000 houses which are to be taken over. Going over the history of those cottages, one finds that the average period of the loans was 40 years. The proposal in the Labourers Bill before the House is that 50 years be the maximum period. Those 10,000 houses are the ones which seem to be frightening the Minister completely. I suggest that there is no foundation for it. If this proposal of ours is not accepted, the old Act will still drag on, and the desire aimed at in that Act is not going to be realised.
I want to see those people made tenants of their own homes. I want to see them rooted in the soil, and given some protection in the rural areas. There are many more houses required, but those at least ought to be put off the market and vested in the tenants themselves. The tenants have indicated clearly over eight years that they are not in a position to accept the Minister's proposal as carried out in the Act of Parliament. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the cottiers were probably unaware of the fact that there would be general repairs done to the cottages before handing them over. I can assure him, from my knowledge of the southern counties, the Limerick, Tipperary, Clare and Kerry districts, that they are fully cognisant of all the circumstances. They are fully aware of the fact that they are entitled to get one repair done, but they are also fully aware of the fact that, following that, they will have to carry out the repairs themselves.
Can the Government lightly contemplate the handing over of this national property to a tenant, with a remission of 15/- a year to keep the house in proper repair? Can the Government lightly contemplate handing them over to people who are in an inadequate position to maintain them? Are we to condemn those houses to deterioration and decay? I think, apart from consideration for the tenants themselves, that State asset ought to be preserved. If we give them a reasonable provision, as suggested in this proposal of ours, they can then be charged with that responsibility, and I believe they would be loyal and patriotic enough to maintain their homes in proper order and condition. You have to make some provision for inordinate repairs that might arise through storms—slates being blown off, and so on—apart from ordinary wear and tear. How on earth is a labourer, with a remission of 15/- a year, expected to be able to do it, when the figures supplied to us by the county councils through all the years past indicate very clearly that they have not been able to keep them in reasonable repair?
The matter has been very fully debated, and I do not think there is very much more I can say in support of our proposal. It falls under two heads. First and foremost, there is our duty to the agricultural labourers. I think nobody in this House can say that they are not deserving of the best. The Parliamentary Secretary said he was prepared to admit that. I think we are all prepared to admit that the agricultural labourers are the foundation of our agricultural economy. Unfortunately, they are drifting from the land. They are becoming a very scarce commodity, and anything we can do to retain them on the land will be good, economic work. They and their fathers have given of their best. They are entitled to the best this House can give them, inside reasoned economy. They are not asking for any favour; they are asking only for a fair crack of the whip. Our proposal of a 50 per cent. remission is a reasonable one, to enable them to take up the responsibility of ownership, with a hope of maintaining the property in a reasonable way for themselves and their families, and preserving that asset for the State. That is the proposal before us. I do not think there is any use in appealing to the Minister, but I have been struck by the reasonableness of the Parliamentary Secretary. If the Minister could see his way to take off the Whips, I am perfectly satisfied that we would have the vast majority of the Fianna Fáil Deputies supporting our proposal just as enthusiastically as members on the other benches. This is not a matter which should be fought on political Party lines. It is a reasonable request on behalf of a section of our community, and I think it would be a decent, generous gesture if the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister would allow a free vote to be taken. I have not the least fear of the result. The agricultural labourers would be vindicated and would get this reasonable concession of 50 per cent. reduction.
In introducing this Bill, one would have expected the Labour Party would have shown some reason why it was necessary to get this extra 25 per cent. reduction in order to convince the labourers that it is a good thing to have their houses vested in them and to have complete ownership.
Having listened to speakers both from the Labour and Fine Gael Benches, I have not heard any case that would convince me that, even if this House agree to the Bill and the Minister were prepared to implement it, the occupiers of these cottages would all flock in next day and ask to have their houses vested in them. Personally, I do not believe that even if this extra 25 per cent. were given, you would have them flocking in to have their houses vested in them. I think that Deputy Keyes, who has a fair knowledge of the agricultural worker, knows that as well as I do.
In the course of the debate there was a good deal of heat and a number of extraneous matters introduced. Deputy Morrissey, for instance, said that if this Bill were passed it would prevent the flight of agricultural labourers from the land. He said that the farmers were in dire distress owing to the need for agricultural workers. It is a great wonder, if that be so, that during the recent harvest when a heavily subsidised scheme was introduced by the Government to provide farmers with such agricultural workers as they required, only 700 farmers applied for extra labour under that scheme. That is an extraordinary fact, remembering that that scheme was heavily subsidised and introduced just before the largest harvest that ever was reaped in this country, and also remembering that we had the worst weather for years. Yet only 700 farmers found themselves faced by scarcity of labour. That goes to prove that there is no flight of agricultural labourers from the land to the extent that we were led to believe by Deputy Morrissey, and that the actual facts are that farmers who employ their labourers all the year round and treat them fairly are able to get their services at all times to do their work. That is one bubble burst, that you have a scarcity of labour and that all the labourers have gone because the Government would not accept this Bill.
Coming to consider the Bill itself, I ask myself as a member of a local authority what was my reaction at the time the Labourers Act was passed in 1936, and what was the reactions of local authorities generally at that time. Local authorities were contributing 33? per cent.—that was the average— towards the loan charges that were necessary under the 1932 Act.
It was a generous contribution, and a voluntary contribution, because local authorities were not compelled to make any contribution at all. They were not compelled under the 1932 Act to make any contribution or subsidy towards the provision of these houses, but in their wisdom, in their better judgement, and in order to help the agricultural labourer to pay his rent, they voluntarily contributed 33? per cent. of the loan charges. Then in 1936 the Government came along with the new Labourers Act. Many members of the local authorities at that time, were they back in the year 1932 or 1933, and had they known at that time that the State was going to put a further burden on local authorities as a result of the 1936 Labourers Act, would, I believe, instead of contributing 33? per cent. of the charges and the cost of building these houses, have given a far less contribution than 33? per cent. I honestly believe that, and I say that as a member of a local authority that was responsible at that time for giving these contributions. Were it not for the fact that we were in the middle of a big housing scheme, and that local authorities had fixed their rents on the basis of a 33? per cent. from the local ratepayers, when they commenced to build these houses and let them at 2/- a week, and that they saw no option but to continue the same rents for the new houses, they would not have agreed to these conditions.
I want to put it to the Labour Party in all seriousness that in their constituencies all over the country there are thousands of agricultural workers who are crying out for further houses to be built to accommodate them. When this war is over, as we hope it soon will be, and when the cost of materials will be double or treble what it was pre-war, what contribution will be necessary from the local ratepayers in order to provide houses for the balance of agricultural workers that are now without houses? Instead of this House setting out to penalise local ratepayers by compelling them to carry an extra burden of £135,000 a year, we ought to encourage them in every way we can to contribute in future, even more generously than they have in the past, towards subsidising the rents that agricultural workers will be compelled to pay under housing schemes after the war. If you set the bad example now of forcing ratepayers all the time to pay heavier subsidies, it will certainly not encourage them to contribute towards the provision of houses in future for people who still require housing.
Remember that the provision of housing under these schemes is more or less voluntary to a certain extent. This House passes Housing Acts but it is left to the goodwill of the local authority to build these houses. Everyone of the local authorities was keen on housing agricultural workers and, as I say, these local authorities contributed 33? per cent. under the 1932 Act. Under earlier Acts they contributed as much as 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. It cannot be said, therefore, that local ratepayers have not stood by the agricultural worker. While the agricultural workers no doubt stood by the farmers during the land agitation, they have been justly repaid by the ratepayers and the farmers who, at all times since the first Housing Act was passed away back in 1898, have contributed substantially in order to keep down the rent which agricultural labourers have had to pay for these houses.
Mr. Morrissey
They are taxpayers and ratepayers as well.
They are, certainly, but they form a very small proportion of the total number of ratepayers and taxpayers. As Deputy Morrissey has reminded me, portion of the £135,000 that would be necessary to finance this Bill would have to be paid by people who have no houses at all and who are waiting until new houses are built after the war. These people will probably be compelled to pay a rent of anything from 5/- to 10/- for houses after the war. I know agricultural labourers at the present time who are paying rents of 5/- and 6/- for cabins in the country because they were not lucky enough to have been selected as tenants for those cottages which are let by local authorities at rents as low as 1/6 and 2/- per week—some of them as low even as 4½d. per week; yet it is proposed that we should give these people a reduction of 50 per cent. At the same time we do not know what we shall have to charge in future to those who are still waiting for houses to be built. The people who are to be future tenants of houses yet to be built should receive more consideration from this House, I suggest, than those who are lucky enough to be tenants of the houses that had been built because I believe the present tenants of cottages all over the country are in a position to pay their rents. If they want a reduction of rent they have an opportunity under the 1936 Act of getting a 25 per cent. reduction automatically. Why are they not applying for it? Is it because of the fear of having to do repairs in the future?
The good tenant of a cottage has very little to meet in the way of repair costs in any year. As regards the bad tenant, whether he owns the cottage or whether the local authority owns it, it will cost a big lot to repair. That has been the experience of local authorities. I have taken as keen an interest in this matter as any Deputy here. I have gone into hundreds of these houses and I have found that wherever there is a good tenant, man or woman, the house did not need very much in the way of repair. The other type of tenant was always neglecting the house and it always required repairs. Fortunately, in this country we have a very small percentage of tenants of that type. At the same time, you will find some in every district, people who will not mind their houses, who will not drive a nail where it is needed or put in a pane of glass to replace a broken one. Tenants of that type drove up the cost of repairs and local authorities know quite well that even if those tenants had a 75 per cent. reduction and the houses were vested in them, they would still have to step in and keep the house in repair. The local authorities realise quite well that if certain classes of tenants had the places for nothing they would not keep them in repair. Every Deputy is aware that there is a small percentage of tenants who would not keep their houses in repair even if they had them for nothing and it would ultimately be necessary for the local authorities to do it.
I am wondering why this Bill was introduced. Why was a Bill not introduced to reduce the rents of houses built by local authorities in urban areas? I challenge the Labour Party to introduce such a Bill. I would like to see the Mayor of Wexford, my colleague Deputy Corish, bringing in such a Bill.
Would you vote for it?
I throw out a challenge to Deputy Morrissey to bring in a Bill to reduce the rents by 25 per cent. in urban areas in County Tipperary.
Would you vote for it if I did?
I challenge the Deputy, or any member of the Labour Party.
If you give me some encouragement, I might.
I should like to see Deputy Corish bringing in a Bill to saddle the ratepayers of Wexford to the extent of 50 per cent. of the loan charges on the houses that, through his efforts, the efforts of this House and the efforts of the Corporation of Wexford, were built in the town of Wexford. I am sure he would not do it and I am sure that there is not a representative of an urban authority in the Twenty-Six Counties who would bring in such a Bill. It will not be brought in for a very good political reason. There is more in this than actually reducing rent by 25 per cent. It is playing to the gallery pure and simple.
Deputy Keyes made a most moderate statement. He did not claim that the Bill he is sponsoring will have all the cottages in the country vested in the tenants; that they all will come in overnight and ask to have their houses vested in them. He did not claim that for the Bill. I do not think any Deputy in the Labour Party will claim here that it will reduce rents by another 25 per cent.
I claim it.
You do not, and you cannot show proof of it. The majority of the houses built prior to 1920 or 1922 had rents of 1/- a week and they went from that as low as 4½d. It does not matter to these people with rents of 4½d., 6d. or 8d. whether they get a 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. reduction— it will not encourage them at all.
Why not pass the Bill so?
I believe it would be more in the interests of those tenants to allow the cottages to remain under the control of the local authorities. I am all in favour of the 1936 Act. I persuaded many tenants to apply. No doubt it is in the interest of some tenants to have their houses vested in them, but it is in the interests of many others that the local authorities would remain in control. If you select tenants who become good tenants and who will keep their houses in good repair, it will be all to the good; but it is against the interests of many others that the houses should be vested in them. I would like to see that done, if they thought it would be of advantage to them. As it is, they have a 25 per cent. reduction.
The argument was put up that farmers got a reduction of 50 per cent., and that is given as a reason why agricultural workers should get a 50 per cent. reduction. There is no comparison between the two classes. The local authorities and the ratepayers have, all the time, since the first labourer's cottage was built, contributed very substantially towards those cottages. As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, the rent is much less now. I say that the rents of those houses are very reasonable. Unfortunately, we will never again in this country be able to erect cottages under the same conditions and let them at the same rent. In some respects it might be bad if we could. Labour costs and the costs of materials were low at the time when those cottages were built and probably it is better that higher rents have to be charged.
Unfortunately, as things look at the moment there are probably 100,000 agricultural workers who are clamouring for houses. Members of local authorities are aware that there are many people, many families in their constituencies, in dire need of houses, and they know that local authorities cannot build them, even with the best of goodwill, because it would cost about £600 to build a labourer's cottage now. Compare that price to the £200 or £300 for which a cottage could be erected pre-war. If you allow the same cost for the land—£20 an acre in a rural area—and take into consideration the same legal costs, and the surveyor's or the engineer's costs, and add to those the increased cost of material and the increased wages, you will realise that the cost of building has gone up by at least 100 per cent. since the war began.
Even if materials were available, the local authorities would find it very difficult to provide even a small percentage of the cottages required. The contribution of the local ratepayers would be a very serious matter, and in the end you would find that a lot of people would not get houses at all. That is what I fear, and perhaps it would be much better to allow these rents to remain as they are and to encourage the tenants to take advantage of the 1936 Act. If I were a member of a local authority, I would insist that there should be a house for every agricultural worker; they should be given houses at the most reasonable rents. I hope the House will reject this Bill because I believe it is not genuinely meant and it serves no useful purpose.
It is quite evident from the speech we have listened to that Deputy Allen is in good fighting form, but his conscience is not at all too clear, or his mind properly working, so far as he is in a position to give reasons for opposing the Bill. I asked what I thought was a reasonable question when the Parliamentary Secretary was using certain figures to bolster up his own case. I asked him what the present percentage of agricultural labourers' wages had to do with the capital cost or loan charges of labourers' cottages erected with loans provided previous to the Treaty. If I understand correctly the meaning of the Ultimate Financial Settlement, it is briefly that it relieved the Government, the farmers, the labourers and the local authorities of this country of the payment, after a particular date, of these charges to Great Britain. The amount of the remission in respect of land annuities previously paid to the British Government was set aside wholly for the purpose of giving a reduction of 50 per cent. in the land annuities paid by farmers. Deputy Allen will not deny that. If that is so, why is it that the loan charges for the erection of labourers' cottages built prior to the Treaty, which were remitted by that Ultimate Financial Settlement, were not set aside for the purpose of reducing the rents of the cottages occupied by labourers, and which were built prior to the Treaty?
That is the case which Deputy Allen should have met and which he has not met. Only about 10 per cent. of the cottage tenants in Counties Leix and Offaly expressed their willingness to take advantage of the 1936 Act, and I suggest that the main reason for their refusal to take advantage of that Act was the very bad condition of the cottages and the cost which would fall on them immediately after they came into possession. I think it was Deputy Morrissey who said that it would pay the ratepayers of the different counties to have these cottages handed over to the cottage tenants with the reduction of 50 per cent. provided for in the Bill. Only to-day the Minister answered a question by me concerning the position in relation to ratepayers of labourers' cottages in Counties Leix and Offaly. I addressed this question to the Minister for Local Government:
"To ask the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he will furnish a statement giving (a) particulars of the amount allocated for the repair of labourers' cottages for year ending March 31st, 1945, for (1) Laoighis and (2) Offaly; (b) the number of cottages included for repair in each county; (c) the number actually repaired up to December 31st, 1944; and (d) the number waiting to be repaired in each county on the last-mentioned date."
The information he gave me was fairly well known to me, but I am sure it will interest other Deputies, and particularly farmer Deputies of the different Parties who may have doubts about the advisability of voting for this Bill in the interests of the ratepayers. The Minister said that, in the case of Leix,
"a short-term loan of £10,000 was raised in 1944 to defray cost of repairs, and a temporary engineer has been appointed to deal exclusively with cottage repairs."
This shows clearly that a very high proportion of the cottages in the county have been allowed to get into a very bad state of repair. What did the Minister admit further on? He said that the total number of cottages to be repaired with the sum of £10,000 is 700. That is an average of about £14 5s. 9d. per cottage. Surely that is one argument for farmer Deputies, who may have any doubts about it, as to why, in the interests of the ratepayers, these cottages should be handed over to the tenants.
The Parliamentary Secretary talked about sociological students. I know that he is associated with many debating societies in the city, that he takes a great interest in economic affairs generally and is a master mind in matters of the kind. He quoted a figure of 8.9 per cent. and said that certain people whose authority in such matters cannot be challenged had come to the conclusion at some time or another that 8.9 per cent. of the income of a worker or wage-earner is a fair amount to set down in respect of rent. May I take it from him that this figure was arrived at by some of the so-called experts in pre-war days? The Parliamentary Secretary indicates "yes". Is it not a fact that the cost of living, on official admissions, has increased by 71 per cent. since that time and is it not a fact that the purchasing power of the pre-war £ is only 11/8 to-day? If it was wise and just, although I thought it unfair at the time, for the Government to reduce these rents by 25 per cent. in 1936, surely there is a good case now for accepting that section of the Bill wherein it is suggested that the original rents be reduced by 50 per cent.
I think I am supported in making my case by the figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary. They showed that the repairs to labourers' cottages in County Leix and County Offaly, although they are not so bad in Offaly, have been allowed to get into such a state of arrear that it is now to cost the ratepayers £10,000 to put in a proper state of repair 700 labourers' cottages at an average cost of £14 5s. 9d. per cottage. I do not know whether the position is as bad in Wexford as it is in Leix and Offaly, but I want to say in conclusion, that this Bill has not been brought forward for any political reason. It was brought forward immediately after a general election which has given the Government the prospect of a life of five years or more, and the members of this small group have nothing to gain from that point of view by bringing forward a measure of this kind. It is submitted on its merits, on the facts presented to the House for its approval or disapproval, and I suggest that the Minister would not suffer any loss of dignity if he announced his decision to leave the merits of the measure to a free vote and to allow Deputies to shoulder their responsibilities and to justify their votes afterwards.
After all the blackguardism we got from the Minister during the general election, it is quite unfair for him to use a measure like this to make further slanderous statements against the members of this Party, and to attempt to justify them by saying that we are putting forward this Bill in an effort to bring ourselves into closer alliance with the powers that be in Moscow or anywhere else. He is the only member of the Government who continually resorts to this type of political slander and it is about time he gave it up. It has nothing to do with the case for or against this Bill.
I should like to associate myself with those who support this Bill, because I believe it will be a direct benefit to the farm labourer. As everybody knows, the farm labourer has many burdens to shoulder, and I think it only just and fair that the case put forward on his behalf by the Labour Party should get consideration and that the Minister should accept the Bill as a measure which will help to relieve the heavy responsibilities which the farm labourer has to bear. I noticed that, when the Minister was speaking on the Second Reading, he seemed to be riding his high horse. He tried to get home points against Deputy Norton and others who took part in the debate. He pointed out, of course, that the erection of 62,000 or 63,000 cottages cost in or about £11,000,000 capital and that the responsibility fell upon the tenant's estate and the local authority. He immediately reverted to the fact that the Party of which I am a member and other Deputies are continually complaining about the heavy burden the ratepayers have to bear. He said there were motions on the Order Paper demanding the national maintenance of roads, mental hospitals, and other things, the responsibility for which falls on the local authorities, and that if they fall on the local authority it would still mean heavier burdens on local government, and he wanted to know what we propose to do to prevent that increase.
He has told us that in the 1936 Act the tenants were offered 25 per cent. reduction of their rent, and the right of purchasing their cottages, but with that right went the responsibility of maintaining the cottages. As the Minister is just as much aware as I am, the maintenance of these cottages in many instances may vary—in some cases a very small sum would be involved, while in other cases it would be a very large sum. Try to imagine the predicament of a farm labourer when, say, his chimney is blown down in a storm, or part of his roof. As the Minister is aware, some of these cottages are in a very poor state, and, in fact, in ten or 15 years from now they will have to be reconstructed from their foundations. I am sure the Minister is aware of that, and the result, as far as I can understand it, would be that this supposed 25 per cent. cut would be well off-set by the responsibility which is placed on the tenant's shoulders for the maintenance of the cottages. In that sense the Government is not shouldering any responsibility or doing any favour in the way of helping these tenants, and particularly the farm labourers.
In the county that I represent— County Mayo—I understand—I am not sure whether I am correct in this, but I think I am—that up to date the tenants or the farm labourers of that county have not yet taken any advantage of the 1936 Act for the purchase of their cottages. That is rather peculiar. I suppose that there are 500 or 600 cottages concerned, and of these not one had been purchased under the 1936 Act up to 1943. Whether any of them have been purchased since 1943, I cannot say, but that does not say very much for the 1936 Act, and I think we would be entitled to say that even if one out of seven of these cottages has been purchased since, it does not say very much for this Bill in favour of which the Minister talks so strongly. Surely, the time has come when we can afford not to think in terms of capital and of where money is to be got, or how it is to be got. Thank goodness, I think that that day is passing very swiftly, particularly when we look outside this country and see that millions can be got for destruction. In this country, however, where, thanks be to God, we have been saved from the horrors of war, and should be thankful that we have been saved from these horrors, we are told that money cannot be got for purposes of construction.
When we read that in Great Britain, the United States of America, and elsewhere, almost untold millions can be got for purposes of destruction, we should hardly be worrying about the few thousands or hundreds of thousands of pounds that this Bill will cost, when we think of the type of people who will benefit under the Bill introduced by the Labour Party, and particularly the type of people who have contributed so much to this country in going out and helping the farmer to produce our food requirements, which were mainly responsible for our being able to maintain our position of neutrality. It might have been very hard to maintain that position if these people had not been prepared to shoulder the spade and to work the plough, the tractor, and so on, in order to enable us to maintain our very existence.
I am surprised that so well versed a man as the Parliamentary Secretary, and men like Deputy Allen and others, should try to read a wrong interpretation into this Bill. One thing I have noticed during my short time in political life is this: When I find Deputies on the Government Benches getting up and trying to misrepresent or misread something introduced by Opposition Parties, I think I am quite correct in saying that whenever they do give any kind of support they are merely trying to whitewash it by supporting it because they feel that by opposing it they would be getting up against the people, but very often they are afraid of the Party Whips or the Government Ministers, and so they act accordingly.
I do not intend to say very much on this. I felt that it was my duty to speak, but a number of other Deputies who have spoken have already made almost every point. However, I should like to say that under the 1936 Act those who purchased the cottages contracted to repair, and that repair is an obligation in law. The local authorities can either force them to repair their cottages and keep them up to the required standard, or employ tradesmen to do it for them. That is rather peculiar. Take the drainage scheme. The responsible drainage authority is the Board of Works, but if a farmer's land is suffering from flooding or some other thing, they cannot force the farmer to drain his land, whereas the local authority can force the tenant of a cottage to keep it up to the required standard, and is the sole judge of what that standard is. The Minister and I are aware that many of these cottages at the moment are not kept up to the required standard, or what I feel is the required standard, and that the local authority is very reluctant to come forward and see that they are kept up to that standard. Now, if the responsibility for keeping up to the standard was on the tenants, they would take jolly good care that their inspectors would keep a close watch on those cottages and see that they would not be allowed to go into decay in any shape or form, and the question of the income of the farm labourer, whether employed or not, would not be taken into consideration. He would have to toe the line. In my judgement, the Bill introduced by the Labour Party would have that desired effect, and I am sure that if the Deputies in this House, who know the disadvantages from which those cottage tenants are suffering, were allowed to go into the Lobby and cast a free vote, there would be a majority in favour of the Bill.
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 25th January.