§ 10. Mr. GINNELLasked whether a scheme of the Mullingar Rural District Council under the Labourers Acts, which would have been in operation before now if the Acts had been administered as previously, stands suspended by the circular issued by the Irish Local Government Board in November, 1911, introducing a new consideration not contained in the Acts, with the result that labourers still occupy dwelling condemned by the sanitary authorities two years ago, while the additional million of public money provided in 1911 at low interest is being spent where there is no need of this pressing character; and whether he will have the policy of that circular discontinued, and that of the Acts resumed?
§ Mr. BIRRELLAs I have already informed the hon. Member, this scheme must await its turn having regard to the invariable principle of dealing first with those cases where the needs of the labouring classes in the matter of housing accommodation are greatest. The Local Government Board are not aware of any 499 foundation for the statement as regards the allocation of the additional million pounds provided by the Act of 1911. In the Mullingar Rural District seventeen schemes have already been sanctioned since 1883 for the erection of 854 cottages. If the entire five and a quarter millions provided by the Acts of 1906 and 1911 were allocated amongst the several rural districts in Ireland in proportion to their respective valuations, the amount which this particular district would have been entitled to would be less than it has actually received. The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that the policy of the Local Government Board is in any way antagonistic to the provisions of the Labourers Acts. The holding of these inquiries has always been a matter for the discretion of the Board.
§ Mr. GINNELLDoes the right hon. Gentleman maintain that this money should be distributed proportionately and not according to necessity, as laid down in the Acts and as hitherto followed? And does he deny that it has hitherto been the practice under the Acts to allocate money in proportion to the actual needs as decided by the local sanitary authorities?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThese are controversial questions. The general object of the extra million was that it should assist those parts of Ireland as far as possible where the Acts have not been put into operation, and there we have in a way done our best to secure that those hitherto not provided with cottages should proceed with their schemes.
§ Mr. GINNELLIs it not obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that places where the Acts had not previously worked were places where the Acts were not required?
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo, Sir. Quite the contrary.
§ Mr. GINNELLDoes the right hon. Gentleman deny that persons for whom these schemes were intended are at present occupying houses condemned by the sanitary authorities two years ago?
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo, Sir, that might very well be so in other places besides this. We take into consideration the sanitary conditions of the cottages, and try to press forward schemes in those places, but the general view is that this extra million was intended to benefit different parts of Ire- 500 land where for different reasons the local authority has not performed its duty and availed themselves of these Acts.