§ MR. SHEEHY (Meath, S.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the inspector who recently held an inquiry under the Labourers Act, in Dunshaughlin, rejected twenty-five claims for extra half-acre plots and twenty-five claims for houses and acre plots; whether he is aware that the inspector's action has been strongly condemned by the Dunshaughlin District Council, as against the evidence produced at the inquiry and the wants of the district; whether there is any means, by petition or appeal, of revising the decision of the inspector; and, if no such appeal or petition is available to councils who promote schemes at expense to the rates, will he cause the rules of the Local Government Board to be so framed as to give the same rights of petition, against the decisions of inspectors, to the district councils and labourers who promote labourers' schemes as are open to parties opposing such schemes or cases in such schemes.
§ MR. BIRRELLThe correct numbers of applications rejected in this case are: sixteen additional half-acres out of fifty-six proposed, and twenty-three cottages and acre plots out of ninety-six proposed. The reason for the rejection in each case has been furnished to the council, and although they have passed a resolution objecting to the inspector's decision, they have not furnished any particulars which would tend to show that his conclusions were not warranted by the facts. The Acts do not contemplate the lodgment of petitions against the inspector's decision, except in cases in which he has approved of the council's scheme, and the formulation of rules such as suggested would be in excess of the Local Government Board's jurisdiction under the Acts. The financial arrangements under the new Act allow for the erection of 25,000 additional cottages only, but the first batch of applications proposes the erection of 47,000 cottages and the acquisition of 11,000 additional allotments. It is obvious that not one half of the number asked for can be provided, and it therefore behoves the inspector to be most careful to pass those applications only in which the necessity for cottages and plots is proved beyond all doubt.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)Is it not the case there was no intention of limiting the number of additional cottages to 25,000, and that in the debates in this House a hope was expressed that by the exercise of economy considerably more might be erected?
§ MR. BIRRELLI have no doubt the hon. Gentleman is correct in his recollection of what was stated in the debate. I quite agree that by the exercise of thrift and economy, and by keeping the legal expenses down, it ought to be possible to erect a much larger number of cottages.