LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 9 March 1904)

§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOE IRELAND, (Mr. WYNDHAM,) Dover
In asking leave to introduce the Labourers (Ireland) Bill I should like to give my reasons for taking the step of introducing it under what is known as the ten minutes rule. Had I followed the ordinary course, it would have been impossible to take the first stage of the measure, I believe, before Easter, and perhaps not before June. I desire to express my regret that, in the circumstances, many Members on this side of the House, who would have wished to take part in the discussion on the Bill, will be precluded from speaking on the subject, a subject in which they feel an exceeding interest. I might have brought in the Bill without any words of explanation, but this would have been open to misconception, and, besides that, I desire to state my reasons for omitting certain provisions suggested to me from many quarters, suggestions in some cases excellent in themselves, but, in my judgment, impracticable under existing conditions, and especially under existing financial conditions. In the first place I have been asked to secure that the period of redemption of loans shall be prolonged and the interest on the loans lowered, but the condition of the money market, not only in England but throughout the civilised world, makes it impossible to take any steps in this direction, and we must await a more propitious time. I 594 have been asked also, to increase the minimum of 1s. of the rate which might be imposed on any county under the Labourers Acts, but the same reason may be adduced, and there are also other reasons. When the Labourers Act was introduced in 1893, the local taxation amounted to £4,250,000, but it now amounts to £6,250,000, and I, for one, do not see my way to add to the burden of the rates of the country. The existing limit of 1s. will produce £12,500,000 in all, and as only £2,700,000 has been sanctioned in these loans, I believe that within that 1s. limit a great deal more may be done, providing the procedure is shortened and cheapened.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
On a point of order, I thought the first Bill to be introduced was the Irish Land Bill?

§ MR. WYNDHAM
I handed that in. I am now proceeding with the Labourers Bill. Then I have been asked to increase the size of the allotments. I have declined to do so, partly on the same ground, partly because the average size of the allotment in England is three-fifths of an acre, and partly because I could not be accessory to creating a fresh state of congestion. There are grave objections in my judgment to bringing in other competitors for land who would have compulsory powers behind them. What remains to be done, therefore, is to cheapen the procedure. By the first clause we make the representation by six labourers and not by twelve, and provide for a simple statement of the need for accommodation with no formalities attached to it and no risk of being refused on a technical point; by the second clause we enpower the district council to act without representation if no representation is forthcoming; and by the third clause the purchase of land by agreement, and where there is no building a scheme can be arranged without any formal scheme, without any inquiry, and without any Provisional Order. I now come to the pith of the BUI, the scheme which involves the compulsory acquisition of land and which aims at the building of cottages. Broadly speaking, the county council, acting through a standing committee, will take the place of the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board will take the place of 595 the Privy Council. I hold that the county council ought to come and play an important part, an important administrative part, in this matter. It is the county council who receive the Exchequer grant and which has to see that no one district monopolises the resources available. The county council too is cognisant of the general burdens and charges that are laid on the county, and therefore it is proper that it should play the most important administrative part, and I am confident they are competent to discharge that duty.
I now come to the next stage, appeal from the petitioners. If the county council reject the scheme of the district council there is a petition from the district council to the Local Government Board, and the decision of the Local Government Board, after local inquiry, will define the needs of the locality and the amount of accommodation which should be provided. I now come to an appeal which in certain cases may be lodged, an appeal as distinct from a petition. The appeal under this Bill will be a local appeal to a Judge of assize on a limited issue instead of a metropolitan appeal to the Privy Council in Dublin upon a general issue. There will be an appeal available if the scheme is lodged merely in respect of selection of site to interfere with the demesne or the amenity of the residence, or interfere unreasonably with the user or enjoyment of land in occupation. That is not an appeal against the necessity or amount of accommodation to be provided. By Clause 12 we make a drastic enactment. We say that where the district council fails to put these Acts into operation, I the Local Government Board may step in and take their place. Under Clause 13 there is a plan for redistributing the Exchequer contribution on a more equitable basis in proportion to the loans which are outstanding under the Acts. This I believe to be a fairer method of distribution than the present distribution, which is based upon certain arbitrary data, obtained many years ago. Incidentally it will afford relief to those counties which built a number of cottages before 1891. Clause 16 enables labourers who have discharged their obligations under the Labourers Act, who have paid their 596 rents for cottages under those Acts during five or six years, to purchase a farm under Section 2 of the Land Act of last year, but no provision is given in this Bill, and I think rightly, to enable the labourer to purchase his cottage and plot. He would then cease to be a labourer. We hold it is necessary to prevent labourers from coming on to uneconomic land, but we think it necessary to provide a bridge to enable an energetic and successful labourer to pass out of the ranks of the labourer into that of the peasant proprietor. I beg to move.

§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)
While I regret extremely that the Bill by a force of circumstances has been introduced in this particular form which prevents discussion, I would like to say that when it was represented, to me that we had cither to have it introduced in this way or have the Bill postponed until after Easter, I expressed the opinion that it ought to be introduced in this way rather than be postponed, because there was great anxiety in Ireland to see the provisions of the measure. Of course, I cannot express any decided opinion with reference to the value of the Bill, but I am bound to say that there will be very widespread disappointment in Ireland when its provisions come to be known. Of course, as everyone is aware, the chief difficulty in the way of the working of the Labourers Acts in the past has been the cumbrous, lengthy, and costly nature of the procedure; and although the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the object of this Bill is to shorten and cheapen the procedure, I confess that I do not think it has substantially done so as far as I have been able to follow the right hon. Gentleman's observations. It seems to me that so far from shortening the procedure he has added, in the case where there is opposition or contest, another stage to the proceedings. At present the steps are, first, a representation to the district council; then the preparation of a scheme and an inquiry by the Local Government Board, with 597 appeal to the Privy Council. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, under the new measure the steps, in cases where there is opposition, will be representation as at present or in a simpler form; the preparation of a scheme by the district council, inquiry by the county council, and then a second inquiry on the spot by the Local Government Board followed in the end I by an appeal to a Judge of assize. So that, in point of fact, there will be two inquiries instead of one, and there will be an additional stage to the procedure. I confess, therefore, that I do not see in what way the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in shortening the procedure. With reference to the abolition of the appeal to the Privy Council, that, of course, is an admirable, amendment of the law, but the right hon. Gentleman substitutes for that an appeal to the judge of assize; the appeal, I admit, is of a limited character, but still an appeal to the Judge of assize, for which there is no precedent whatever in the English law, seems to me absolutely unnecessary. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman has not shown in his new Bill that he materially shortens the procedure.
Now does the right hon. Gentleman materially cheapen it? and this perhaps is more important still. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech with an apology for not touching the rate of interest. There is no provision which, in my judgment, would so materially facilitate the working of the Act so much as one which extended the period of redemption of the loans. At present loans are repaid by annuities which run from 4½ to 4¾ per cent., and this, coupled with the necessary repairs, means that for every cottage the labourer has to pay about £6 per year. The charge for rent is only 1s. per week, so that the difference, a considerable matter, falls at present upon the ratepayers, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been able, notwithstanding the present condition of the money market, to extend the period of redemption so as to diminish the amount of annuity payable in respect of these loans. It is not only in this respect that the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing to cheapen the procedure. There is no portion of the cost of the present 598 working of the Act which is more oppressive than the expenditure connected with the investigation of title and the distribution of purchase money, and the right hon. Gentleman has made no proposals to lighten the expenditure in that regard. Another serious item of expenditure is that on arbitration. Under the present system the progress is slow and the cost very considerable, and I think it is regrettable that the right hon. Gentle man has not seen his way to introduce some limitation of expenditure in this regard. In his measure the right hon. Gentleman has not proposed any substantial shortening of the procedure or any substantial cheapening of the procedure either.
With reference to the other proposals in the Bill, I have only a few observations to make. The right hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting announcement with reference to the Exchequer contributions which are at present paid to counties for the purposes of the Labourers Acts. Some counties have not used them at all, some have used only a portion of them, and he pro poses to redistribute these in the future on a new principle, giving most to those counties making most use of the Labourers Acts. It seems to me on the first blush that this is a proper proposal, though it is one which will have to be properly discussed. But what is going to become of the existing balances I The right hon. Gentleman only proposes to deal with the contributions in the future, but at the present time there are unexpended balances to the extent of £150,000. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do with these? Although some of the counties may have a local grievance, I think the majority of the people might support him if he intends to take them and make use of them for the benefit of the labourers of Ireland; but, if he is going to take these unexpended balances away from the counties and devote them to any other purpose, then this is a proposal which I believe will be very seriously discussed and very strongly opposed. There are other provisions in the Bill with which I cannot deal, but I wish to say just one word with respect to a proposal which I understand is in the Bill, and which disqualifies from election to district councils, labourers who are tenants of cottages in the locality. 599 Now at present they are entitled to be elected. The question was recently tried in the Courts, and it was decided on the analogy of English cases that they were entitled to be elected. And they are, as a matter of fact, elected at present, and if, as I have reason to suppose, the right hon. Gentleman is going to disqualify them he will certainly arouse a very bitter feeling amongst the whole class of labourers and will not certainly smooth the path of his Bill. I will not go into other matters, but will content myself by saying now, as I did at the commencement, that the right hon. Gentleman has sketched a measure which will cause widespread disappointment in Ireland, and I think when we come to discuss it he will find that unless he is prepared to I accept very large Amendments in the direction of improving the position of the labourers, ho cannot count on anything in the nature of general support from tins part of the House.