Má táim in ordú, ba mhaith liom cur in aghaidh an fhocail "sclábhaithe" i dTeideal an Bhille seo. Ní dóich liom gur ceart an focal sin do thabhairt ar lucht oibre na tíre seo. "Lucht oibre" an phríomh-chiall atá leis. Tá a fhios agam go mbaintear úsáid as in áiteacha eile ach saoilim gur sórt leas-ainme é.
Labourers Bill, 1938—First Stage.
Ní headh.
An bhfuil an Teideal os ár gcóir?
Tá.
Tá leas-ainm eile ann—an focal "spailpin"— ach ní maith liom é sin a bheith seasta i ndlithe. Má táim in ordú, ba mhaith liom leas-rún do chur isteach chun "lucht oibre" do chur san Bhille in ionad an fhocail atá ann—nó, más fearr leis an Tigh focal aonair, an focal "oibritheoirí". B'fhearr liom an téarma "lucht oibre." Sé an chiall atá leis an fhocal atá son Bhille ná "slave" agus ní dóich liom gur ceart an focal sin do thabhairt ar lucht oibre fé láthair.
Níl an Seanadóir in ordú anois. The Senator is not in order on the First Stage. We have first to allow the Bill to be introduced. The question is that leave be given to introduce the Bill.
Aontuim leis an Seanadóir deireannach mar gheall ar an bhfocal "sclabhaithe." Se mo thuairim nach ceart an focal sin agus gur ceart duinn é d'athru. I beg leave to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to make further and better provision for the purchase by the tenants thereof of cottages and plots provided under the Labourers Acts, 1883 to 1937, and for that purpose to amend the Labourers Act, 1936 (No. 24 of 1936) in certain particulars.
Is that motion being opposed?
Yes.
I am sorry to see the Minister for Local Government and Public Health here, because his appearance indicates that this Bill is being opposed. The history of the Act which we are trying to amend is rather peculiar. When it was passed through the House in 1936, there was a chorus of approval from all sides, including the Government side. On the one contentious point, the matter of the reduction of rents, opinions were greatly divided. I think the main opposition to this Bill will be directed against that point, the reduction by 50 per cent. of the original rents. I am informed that the debate in the other House showed that there was a big volume of opinion in favour of this reduction. The Opposition were all right. The Government would be all right, too, were it not for the unfortunate whip which was applied by the Minister. Some members of the Dáil, supporters of the Government, who had spoken in favour of the 50 per cent. reduction, responding to that great lash, voted against their own convictions in the matter. We shall probably be told that if this 50 per cent. reduction is given, it will stop further building of cottages and that many labourers who want cottages badly will have no chance of getting them. We are definitely challenging these statements. This is neither the time nor the place to substantiate the challenge by getting actuarial advice on the matter if necessary, but I can say definitely that this change can be brought about without imposing one penny burden upon the ratepayers.
It is extremely unlikely that the present Act will be availed of by the tenants. There is no enthusiasm about it, as the Minister admits himself. He admits further that that enthusiasm does not exist because the tenants, the possible purchasers, were not aware of the terms of the Bill when they first exhibited enthusiasm. As a matter of fact, amongst large masses of the tenants, the enthusiasm which once existed seems to have vanished completely, as a result of the revisions made in the Act which the tenants did not regard as good revisions. We shall be told also, possibly, that the findings of the Cottier Tenants Commission, set up in 1932, are embodied in the Act and that it was signed by eight members who were on the commission. That is true but we have not been told that so insistent were four members on this question of the reduction of 50 per cent., that although the matter was not within the terms of reference of the commission, the chairman of the commission permitted these four members to make a minority report, which I think was embodied in the final report some months afterwards. You have the fact that it was a case of 50-50 on that commission—50 per cent. in favour of the 50 per cent. reduction and 50 per cent. the other way. I think that is a very important matter and I would stress it in this way. In the terms of reference presented to that commission of inquiry, the question of the 50 per cent. reduction was never referred to. It did not come within the comprehension of the terms of reference of the inquiry. We say that if it had, the findings of the commission would have been different. Leave to introduce this Bill was opposed in the Lower House so that no opportunity was given to the advocates of the reduction to 50 per cent. to make the case which we maintain they can make.
Is it in order for a Senator to make a Second Reading speech?
It is in order to make an explanatory statement.
A volume of opinion in favour of purchase exists. I think it is the duty of everybody who can help in the retention on the land of the cultivators of the land—next to the small farmers, possibly the most important people in the country—to give that help. I appeal strongly to the farmers to give us an opportunity of going into the details of this Bill and not to choke it at birth and deprive the Seanad of the opportunity of judging the justice, the equity and the great possibility that exists if a proper Bill is presented to the cottier tenants. The ground for the opposition to the Bill in the Dáil was one which I could scarcely understand, because the amount of money involved is not such as would upset any large scheme of rural building. I appeal to the Minister, in the interests of the rural population and in the interests of the farming industry, with whom the people for whom I plead are closely allied, to reconsider the question and give the Seanad a chance of considering the whole position.
Mr. Tunney rose.
I refer the Senator to Standing Order 68, which says:—
"When a Bill is to be initiated in the Seanad, a copy thereof, authorised by the signatures of not less than three nor more than six Senators as proposers shall be delivered... The Senator whose name shall appear as first signatory ... shall be deemed to be the Senator having charge of the Bill and shall move for leave to introduce the Bill. If such motion be opposed, the Cathaoirleach, after permitting an explanatory statement from the Senator who moves, and a statement from a Senator who opposes the motion, may, if he thinks fit, put the question thereon......"
The Standing Order of the Dáil on this matter is practically identical in terms and I have observed from the debate there that when a similar Bill was brought before that House the procedure was indicated by the Ceann Comhairle before the discussion was commenced. I am doing similarly now. The procedure is that one of the signatories to the Bill is permitted to make an explanatory statement, followed by a member of the main opposition Party, and then the Minister, if he desires, may speak. I presume the House is satisfied with that procedure.
There are certain Standing Orders governing this House which are not on all fours with those of the Dáil, and I think that, subject to your ruling, Sir, the Minister has no right to address the House at this stage.
As you were good enough to say, Sir, that you were satisfied with that line, might I suggest that one of the privileges of this House, which, admittedly, the House can refuse, the allowing of a First Reading, in the past has been due to the fact that the House did allow, provided it was at all a suitable subject, a First Reading in the case of every Bill, and did not reject the Bill without seeing it. If we are to have the First Stage of a Bill, with a statement in support, another against it, and then the Minister's statement on the Bill which we have not seen, with the possibility that the Bill may be rejected, I think it would be a highly undesirable practice. I urge the Minister, if he has constitutional rights in the matter, not to press them on the First Stage of a Bill.
I should like to say something on the question of First Readings in this House, without adverting to the merits of this Bill. I agree with Senator Douglas that, waiving for the moment whether the Minister has or has not a constitutional right, it is a very undesirable thing that the First Stage of a Bill should be defeated here by anybody. My personal view is that when any responsible people in the House put forward a legislative proposal, I would not object to the Bill being printed and circulated. I would go further and say that on the Second Stage, unless something entirely abhorrent to myself were in the Bill, I should be inclined not to vote against it, but wait to see what proposal would emerge when the Seanad had considered the Bill in Committee. I admit that the Minister on Second Stage might come in, if he pleased, and put his point of view, but while that is my point of view generally about Bills, in the case of this particular Bill there is a complication. It is that, in respect of this Bill, apart from our discussion of its merits, a motion to introduce it was before the other House, and was rejected. In effect, what we are being asked to do now is to give leave to introduce this Bill, and to put it through its various stages; in other words, to make up an article and send it down to people who have already said they do not want it.
I think that is a very bad procedure, and I should like to suggest to the people who are sponsoring this Bill and any other people who have friends in the other House that it is a very bad procedure for this House that motions or Bills defeated in the other House should be introduced in the same form in this House. For that reason, although, as I say, I would be very strongly in favour of all first stages, I find it difficult to vote for this one, and while there may be special circumstances in this case, I think it is very undesirable generally, from the point of view of the business of the House, that the Minister should appear at this stage to make his case against the Bill. There may be very special circumstances in this instance, but I regard it as a very bad procedure indeed that when leave to introduce a Bill is refused in the other House, and even when the Bill is defeated, it should be immediately introduced here and we should be invited to pass it and to send it back to the other House which has already demonstrated, whether we like it or not, that it does not want it.
It was demonstrated that it would not look at it.
It was demonstrated that the Dáil would not look at it, and whether we could make a more beautiful article which they would look at, I do not know, but I doubt it. For this reason, I feel that it is not a very sound procedure, although, in general, I think that any group of people who want to introduce a Bill should be encouraged to do so. I think that more use should be made of this House for the introduction of Bills by Private Members than the other House, which is more congested, and does not want its time taken up with the consideration of Private Bills.
I think Senator Hayes has made a very useful contribution——
I have an option as to the number of statements to be made, and I propose now to hear the Minister.
Have I not got the right to say what I think?
We cannot have a general debate on this stage.
Is it not an extraordinary procedure that this House is going to reject this motion, while not a single Senator has said anything against the motion? I think that will be a very remarkable procedure. I am speaking entirely impersonally and I have no objection to the Minister speaking at all.
If Senator Hayes' remarks were in order and were treated as being directed to a point of order, anything that any other Senator chooses to say on the same lines would also be in order, if directed to a point of order.
I will now hear the Minister.
I assure you, Sir, that I have no desire in the world to ask the House to listen to me, if the House does not desire to do so. If you indicate to me that the House wishes to hear anything I have to say, I shall be quite happy to speak.
Might I ask whether any Senator is available to put the points the Minister wishes to put?
The Minister is here in exercise of a constitutional right. I had already, earlier in the day, given consideration to the point. In view of the provision in the Constitution that every member of the Government shall have the right to attend and to be heard in the Seanad, I am of the opinion that the Minister has a right to be heard on this matter, if he chooses to assert it.
Is it not necessary, under Standing Order 68, after a Senator has moved the motion, that the House should hear the Senator who opposes the motion? The other speeches we heard from various Senators were directed to points of order and not to opposing the motion.
If the Minister wishes to make a statement, I will hear him, and that will conclude the discussion.
I am in rather a difficulty; I do not wish to intrude at all. I was asked by you, Sir, to-day if it was my intention to come to the Seanad and I said: "Yes, if I am wanted." I gathered from you when you asked me if I were coming here that it was your wish that I should be here and, therefore, I am here. If the House wishes to hear anything from me on the subject I shall be quite happy to let them hear it. I am, as a matter of fact, very much at home on the subject, knowing a great deal more about it than even Senator Cummins, and if the House wishes I will tell them anything I know about it.
I would not have said what I did say if I had known that you, Sir, had invited the Minister.
The position was that I had a discussion with the Minister, and in reference to the matter of his attendance I pointed out that the Constitution gave him the right to be present and to be heard. I do not know what impression he got from the conversation, but the fact is that I told him that if he wished to come he had a constitutional right to be heard, and would be heard, if he came?
Do you wish me to speak, Sir?
If the Minister so desires.
Senator Cummins, in his remarks on the subject, in asking leave to introduce this Bill, adverted to the fact that the House was not being allowed to discuss the Bill, that is, if there was going to be opposition to the First Stage. I may say that when this Bill was before the Dáil two years ago, there was a very full discussion on the principal matter in Senator Cummins' discourse—the question of a 50 per cent. reduction in the rents versus a 25 per cent. reduction. I fully realise, of course, that that does not mean that the House, if it wished, should not discuss the matter over again, but there was a full, free and frank discussion on the subject. In 1936, the Bill making purchase possible by the cottage tenants became law after a full and frank discussion. This matter of the Act enabling the cottage tenants to purchase their houses and holdings arose out of a persistent agitation carried on in the country over a number of years, by cottage tenants, individuals and organisations asking the Government to put legislation through the Oireachtas enabling the tenants to become owners of their cottages and holdings.
There was an agitation over a long period. When I became Minister for Local Government I received shoals of resolutions. I received deputations, and I received many letters from individual cottage tenants and from cottage tenants' organisations all over the country asking for a Bill of this kind. In order to get the mind of the people concerned chiefly, and the mind of the country generally, I, at the request of many of these cottage tenants' organisations, set up a commission of inquiry into the sale of cottages and plots provided at various times under the Labourers Acts. I am sure that most, if not all, the members of the House have seen the report of that commission. It was published four years ago. The Bill that I introduced was based on the report that I got from that cottage tenants' commission. Three of the eight people who were members of the commission were able and direct advocates of the cottage tenants' organisations. They were the representatives of those cottage tenants and of the holders of cottage plots. There were others on the commission who, though not direct representatives of the cottage tenants, were sympathetic with their point of view. That commission, in its report, recommended the 25 per cent. reduction that is contained in the Bill. Every member of the commission signed that report. Four of those who were chiefly interested in the cottage tenants put an addendum to the report. They said:
"We have signed and agreed with the general report..."
They did not withdraw from their recommendation that a reduction of 25 per cent. would be a just and reasonable reduction, and went on to say:
"... but desire to add that in view of the fact that substantial reductions to the extent of at least 50 per cent. are being made in all annuities payable by tenant farmers and others, under the various Land Acts, we suggest that in this connection, favourable consideration should be given to the position of existing cottier tenants whose rents form portion of the payments hitherto made to the British National Debt Commissioners by An Saorstát."
That is dated the 29th March, 1933, and is signed by Eamonn Mansfield, Michael Smyth, James O'Farrell, and Séamus Johnston. Although they signed that, they did not withdraw their recommendation that a 25 per cent. reduction would be a just and fair reduction in the rents, and that a cottage tenants' scheme, based on that condition, would be fair and just. That is their statement in the report, and that is what I embodied in the Bill.
Certain gentlemen want to give more than that. Is not that the position? What I see in this is that if a 50 per cent. reduction were agreed on it would eventually have the effect of stopping cottage building altogether. There are Senators who are members of local authorities. They know the burden that our housing policy has put upon the ratepayers. It has done that, and I say justly so. If this housing policy is ever to be solved in town and country, then the national Exchequer, which is bearing its share, as well as the ratepayer, will have to put their hands in their pockets to pay for its solution. Both are doing that. All parties in the country are doing it. Thanks be to goodness there is no question of Party. All Parties are joining together in pushing forward our housing programme. My belief is that if you were to put an additional burden on the ratepayers by doing what is suggested here to-day you would stop the building of labourers' cottages. There are many thousands of labourers in every part of the country who are still without cottages. Are you prepared to leave them in the lurch? That, in effect, is what you want to do. I am not saying that you are doing that willingly or deliberately, but in effect, that is what the result will be. It may be that if a vote were taken on this you would have some voting in favour of giving a 50 per cent. reduction rather than the 25 per cent., but having voted in favour of the 50 per cent. reduction they would go back to their local boards and send up to me, as Minister for Local Government, a fiery resolution damning this Government for raising the rates.
Oh!
Senator Cummins knows that happens as well as I do. I am principally concerned that the building of labourers' cottages should go on throughout the country. I am particularly anxious, of course, that where there is a slum problem to be dealt with that good houses should be provided. Unfortunately we have slums in most of our towns and cities. We have a slum problem, too, in the rural areas. You have rotten housing conditions in rural areas, and, therefore, as I have said, I do not want to see the building of labourers' cottages stopped. I am sure there is no member of the House who would vote in favour of that. Aside from that I submit that we are doing the just and the fair thing so far as the tenants of those cottages are concerned. Their representatives on the commission pinned themselves down and signed a document saying that this was a just scheme. That is what is in the Bill.
There are other arguments that might be used to show that the Bill is just. One is that a number of the tenants of labourers' cottages are in a position to bear a much higher rent, in proportion to their incomes, than they are actually paying. You have such people as tenants of labourers' cottages in every county. There are people in the occupation of those labourers' cottages for whom the cottages were never intended. There are hundreds and hundreds of such people —teachers, Civic Guards, lorry drivers, people with shops and so on.
And probably Senators.
That may be. It does not follow that because a man may happen to be a Senator that he would not be entitled to a cottage. There may be Senators who are cottage tenants and who are properly entitled to be such. But, you have hundreds of people, such as I have been speaking of, occupying labourers' cottages. For the benefit of the rural worker, we propose that he shall become the owner of his cottage in a period related to the period of the existence of the cottage at a payment on an average of 10½d. per week. Of course, he has to do the repairs. In their report, the commission say that it is their opinion that the repairs will probably be better done by the tenants themselves than they were by the local authorities, with all their staffs and officials, in days gone by. That is the opinion of those who sat on that commission.
I have kept the House a long time, but these are the reasons why, in the Dáil, I opposed the 50 per cent. reduction when the Bill was going through. I opposed it last week, and I am giving the Seanad the same opinion now, because my first interest is to see the housing conditions of the country improved—to see the slums wiped out in every town and city in the country. The suggestion made here would, if adopted, retard that being done.
May I ask the Minister one question?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Under our Standing Orders, the debate has now concluded and there can be no further discussion.
Not even to ask the Minister a question?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
No.
Question put.
The Seanad divided:—Tá, 17; Níl, 21.
Tá
- Butler, John.
- Campbell, Seán P.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Counihan, John J.
- Crosbie, James.
- Cummins, William.
- Delany, Thomas W.
- Douglas, James G.
- Foran, Thomas.
- Hawkins, Frederick.
- Hayes, Michael.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Johnston, Joseph.
- Lynch, Peter T.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- Madden, David J.
- Tunney, James.
Níl
- Colbert, Michael.
- Conoannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Goulding Seán.
- Healy, Denis D.
- Johnston, James.
- Keane, Sir John.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Keohane, Patrick T.
- MacCabe, Dominick.
- McEllin, Seán.
- Mac Fhionnlaoich, Peadar (Cú Uladh).
- McGee, James T.
- McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
- Magennis, William.
- O'Donovan, Seán.
- O'Dwyer, Martin.
- Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
- Quirke, William.
- Robinson, David L.
- Stafford, Matthew.
Tellers:—Tá, Senators Campbell and Cummins; Níl, Senators Goulding and O'Donovan.
Question declared negatived.