§ MR. M'DERMOTT (Kilkenny, N.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the protest of the Callan Board of Guardians against the decisions of the Local Government Inspector rejecting many representations put forward by the Guardians under the Labourers Acts although such representations were unopposed, and in some cases rejecting them because the labourers, in whose behalf the applications were made, are unmarried; whether, as the Acts made no distinction between single and married labourers, the officials of the Local Government Board are entitled to exclude from the benefit of the law a class not excluded by the Legislature; and whether, in cases of unopposed applications where the local medical officers certify that there is sanitary need of the additional house accommodation, the Local Government Board will allow the uncontested opinion of the Local Authorities concerned to prevail?
§ MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY)The Local Government Board report that the Callan Guardians recently passed a resolution protesting against the action of their Inspector in not recommending certain houses which the Guardians proposed to be built under the Labourers Acts. As regards the statement that some of the houses were rejected on the ground that the labourers on whose behalf the applications were made were unmarried, the Inspector states that of the seven single men for whom it was proposed to erect cottages, four were living permanently with their employers, one had a house which he sold and then went to America, one lived with his father and mother in a house which was not condemned by the sanitary officer, and one had a house of his own which was not condemned. With respect to the general question of providing houses for single men, it is to be observed that a representation for a cottage made to a Sanitary Authority must allege that the existing house accommodation for 630 labourers and their families is deficient (see Section 4 of the Labourers Act 1883), and if an applicant for a new cottage had anyone dependent upon him for support, the fact of his being unmarried would not constitute a reason for rejecting the application. With regard to the concluding portion of the question, although some unopposed applications were rejected by the Inspector, it must be remembered that the mere fact that an application for a new house to replace an existing condemned dwelling was not opposed at the inquiry would not alone justify the Inspector in recommending the case for approval, as other matters, such as the unsuitability of the site, the necessity for imposing additional taxation on the ratepayers, &c, would have to be considered by him.