On Section 2, I think if you, sir, gave us a certain amount of latitude, we might be able to discuss the matter of how the percentages, which are to determine whether the area is to be considered an Irish-speaking area or not, are determined.
Housing (Gaeltacht) Bill, 1929—Committee.
The Dáil went into Committee.
Section 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 2.
The Deputy is proposing to take on Section 2, with a certain amount of latitude, all the amendments to the Schedule with a view to determining the Schedule. If Deputies who have amendments down are agreeable to that course, that can be done.
Yes. This is a section which gives the Minister power to add new names to the Schedule. We have no objection to giving the Minister power, if we know how he is going to exercise it. There is a provision that such additions to the Schedule shall be laid on the Table of the House, which seems a satisfactory safeguard. But, it says that the Minister will add new names, or make changes in the Schedule, on account of local variations in the numbers or distribution of Irish-speaking persons. I should like to know how exactly the Minister is going to find out what the local variations are. The Census figures, as has been pointed out by some Deputies from the Gaeltacht on this side, are taken as the sole basis, and in my opinion are not satisfactory. It simply means that, in these areas, for example, where the local schoolmaster told the pupils at school, when he was instructing them how to fill in the Census papers, to fill in the names of their people as Irish speakers, that area has a high percentage. If, in other areas, that was not done, and if the Census papers were filled in a haphazard way, the percentage may be low. The Census figures give us the numbers of people who can speak Irish, but there is no proof that they do speak Irish habitually; neither is there proof, as I say, that that is absolutely authoritative. There are a number of areas on the border line.
We know that the line must be drawn somewhere, and that the Census figures may be the best available. But, the fact is that they are not satisfactory, and it is the duty of the House to get a more definite formula which, if it cannot be included in this Bill, will be made the foundation in future for legislation with regard to the Gaeltacht, so that we will not have the position that areas, which were in the Gaeltacht in 1926, are not in it now, and that areas, which were not in the Gaeltacht in 1926, at some future time may be in it. I think the best way out of that is to try and have a homogeneous area even at the risk of having certain electoral divisions or small units in it, which have a small percentage of Irish speakers, if we are satisfied that the union area for example—if you take the union area as a basis—is in the main Irish-speaking. The Minister and Deputies on the other side of the House may take up the position that areas which are not really native-speaking, but which may, through the school programme and so on, acquire a percentage of Irish speakers, may in time, although they have actually no native Irish speakers left there, be considered part of the Gaeltacht. I do not see what is to stop that. There is no test as to homogeneity, or as to the territory being united. There are spots on the map in different counties. There is nothing to unite them together, or bring them under the one administration. That was the reason why I suggested we should make an effort to get back to the old congested areas, because I regard the valuation test as a very important thing, and while I do not suggest now that we can get back to the congested areas, I should like the House to know that there are numbers of areas which are excluded where the people are badly off, where there is low valuation and so on, because they have only 23 or 24 per cent. of Irish speakers instead of 25 per cent. There is no definite authoritative ground in my opinion which shows that the Census figures are correct. I should like the Minister to tell us how he intends to proceed in the future when considering the advisability of adding fresh names to the Schedule, or what are the chances of adding to the Schedule a percentage, or all, of the names that appear in the amendment.
Perhaps the reasons that I would like to advance in support of the substantial additions included on the Order Paper to the Schedule would be different from those advanced by Deputy Derrig. I want to say again what I said on the Second Reading Stage of the Bill, that I do not accept at all the percentages in the recent Census. I am quite certain that the whole method of arriving at the information contained in that Census was faulty and that the result is not a fair indication of the real position, and I think the Minister will not have to go very far to get absolute confirmation upon that point. Again I stress the point that even admitting that the figures were correct, this is not the way to administer a Bill of this kind and that there should be the widest possible interpretation of the spirit that ought to underlie the Bill in order to get the best results from it. I hold again that the predominant consideration in this matter ought to be the need for housing, and that this question of ruling out very deserving cases ought to be considered in a different light from that underlying the whole Bill.
I do not accept the percentages arrived at in respect to a great many areas in West Cork. I repeat in that constituency there are areas and individual cases that I do not want to go into or describe here, that it would be a tragedy to omit from the Bill. It was in that spirit that I refused to subscribe to the amendment to provide accommodation in another direction. While I realised there was some case for that, I wanted to support the principle that the real need in a Bill of this kind is for housing of the people and that housing accommodation in other directions, if agreed to, would limit the money available for housing. I hope it is not going to be advanced that this Bill is going to be the end of the attempt to solve this whole question. I think it must be generally realised that the amount of money available here is not going to do that. I do not accept the view of the Minister that by making additions to the Schedule we are going to water down the whole principle of the Bill. I regard this Bill as the first instalment of an attempt to deal with this whole problem.
It seems to me that the limitation of the Bill on the basis on which the Minister proposes to go forward is entirely wrong, and I hope there will be some accommodation found on this point and that there will be a real effort made to get the best out of the Bill and to see that the areas that have an absolute claim to sanitary dwellings owing to the terrible conditions under which the people live are, irrespective of limitation either of language or otherwise, included within the scope of the Bill.
Surely we cannot now enter into a discussion as to whether areas should be included in the Bill which are not included in the Gaeltacht. The Deputy is raising a point which has already been decided. We can argue what is the Gaeltacht on this amendment, I think, and on the amendment to the Schedule, but we are going into a point which has already been decided by the Second Reading. As regards the point that the Bill should apply to areas where houses are needed, irrespective of language, the Bill is based on the question of language.
Mr. Murphy
I submit it would not be impossible for the Minister, under the regulations which he has made, to give some effect to the point.
I could not do it.
I think the Minister could not do it. The Bill was adopted on the basis of providing dwelling-houses with ancillary accommodation for certain areas which have to be defined on a language basis. That is the whole essence of the Bill. What we can discuss is the limits of the Gaeltacht and whether a particular house in an area not otherwise Irish-speaking could be included, but to get away from the language basis now would be impossible. I think the Deputy should see that himself.
Mr. Murphy
I have discussed the question even on the basis you mentioned, and I think I have nothing more to add to it. I have strong ideas on the matter, but I am content that I have said enough to establish a case which undoubtedly exists.
That is another day's work.
With regard to the point made by Deputy Derrig about the position of Irish since the Census was taken, there are many districts which could only show 23 per cent. but which now, owing to the position which the language has reached in the schools, show a considerably higher percentage since the Census was taken.
Mr. Hogan (Clare):
I would like to support the plea put forward by Deputy Derrig that the Minister would indicate in what fashion he is to arrive at variants to the Gaeltacht subsequently to this Bill. I know that it is a difficult matter the Minister is tackling. I fully appreciate the very great difficulty of the problem that is before him. I know he will have some difficulty in satisfying himself that statistics and census returns are always right. I have some experience of that matter. In considering the situation I know the Minister will have a very difficult problem to face. I am not anxious to confuse him or to put any impediment in his way in arriving at a decision, but I would put to him this point. Some districts verging on the breac-Ghaeltacht that have very low valuations, districts where Irish is showing an inclination to die, should be included in the Schedule. These are places where Irish is on the decay, and if a man with a bad house in that district who is anxious to build a house sees a few miles away another man getting the advantage of this Bill, he will say to himself: "What is the use of starting to speak Irish, a language I have not spoken for the past ten years?" If these districts are included I think it would be a great fillip to these people to restart speaking Irish. It is not a case of coming in on the new and reviving the language in these districts; it is a case of giving them some reason for doing it.
I say that to give the Minister some reason for the list I have put down to the Schedule in many districts. I do not know what the percentage of Irish may be within these areas as given by the Census. I am not concerned with that. I know there are houses in them where you have old men and middle-aged men who can speak Irish if they like and speak it well. If they see people a few miles away who, because the Census returns show a certain percentage of Irish speakers, get grants. they will say: "The Government has no respect for us because we do not speak Irish, and we are getting no encouragement to speak it here. Because there is .56, or whatever it may be, on the other side they get advantages and we get no help." That is the reason I include these lists. I know there is dormant Irish in these districts, and I want them to speak it again.
I agree with the remarks of Deputy Hogan. With regard to Donegal, I have a number of divisions to be included put down as an amendment. Looking over some of the figures and returns I find, taking the Census of 1926, that the whole thing is all wrong. I know in one part of Donegal, in Innishowen, which is one of the most mountainous parts of the country, the percentage given in some of the areas there is only .6. One particular district, Illies, is given as .5. I am perfectly sure that at least 30 per cent. of the people there are Irish speakers. Moreover there is a low valuation. For that reason I think those amendments should be accepted and put on the Schedule.
Deputies know on what grounds the Schedule was based. The Gaeltacht Commission Report advocated that the Gaeltacht should include all electoral areas which were 25 per cent. Irish speaking and over.
Irrespective of whether they were native Irish-speaking or not.
I do not think they made any distinction. I am not responsible for the Gaeltacht Commission Report.
The Gaeltacht Commission did not consider anything but native speakers.
The Government accepted that. When we had to come along and get a schedule for a Bill of this kind we had to take this 25 per cent. and over as a line. The only authoritative body that could give that 25 per cent. would be the persons who compiled the Census. We, therefore, based our Schedule on the Census of 1926 entirely. The question as to the places outside and bordering on that is, one might say, another day's work. Deputy Reynolds raised the question of a place in Leitrim, and Deputy Murphy raised the question of a place just bordering on the Gaeltacht. These places might be just as necessitous as the places included, but this is a Gaeltacht Housing Bill. It is for a specific purpose. I might also say that if it were a question of housing outside the Gaeltacht it would not be my job. I am not the Minister responsible for housing in the country. It is the fact that it is the Gaeltacht Housing Bill that puts me in charge of it. I have been put some posers that, honestly, I do not think I could answer.
My own point of view is that it is most unlikely that I would add to the Schedule now or in the near future. It is so unlikely that I have not even yet considered in detail as to how I could go about increasing the Schedule or adding to it. Of course, it would be laid on the Table of the House. If I did so I would have to give some very good reason for doing it. I do not know offhand how I could glean the information that would enable me to add to the Schedule, pending another census, of course. I do not know how I could glean the information that electoral division so-and-so which is not 25 per cent. Irish-speaking, according to the Census of 1926, has, in 1930, become 27 per cent. Irish-speaking. I honestly could not answer at the moment how that information could be gleaned. One might take it, therefore, that the possibility of adding to these districts is very unlikely.
As regards Deputy Murphy's point about the need for houses, that generally may be so, and it might be that the greater poverty should be first considered without any question of language. But, in fact, this is a Bill to deal with the areas which are language areas and at the same time to deal with a great deal of poverty, and mostly the greater poverty will be found in the fior-Gaeltacht. As to whether the Census figures are correct, I do not know. I can quite well imagine that they may not be. It would be very easy, for instance, if something like this were foreseen for the local school teacher or the local doctor—I would not say the local curate, because he would not do anything like this—to advise people in filling up the Census form to say they were Irish-speaking. There are people with certain mentalities who would say in filling up a form that they were Irish-speaking whether they were or not. I am sure nearly all the supporters of the Deputies on the opposite side would say that they were Irish speakers. Of course, that is another matter. At any rate, the Census must be taken. The only real ground on which we have to stand in finding out figures of that kind must be the Census. How I could depart from that I do not know.
Mr. Hogan (Clare):
Regarding the point made by Deputy Derrig, as to how the Gaeltacht Commission came to the 25 per cent. conclusion, the Gaeltacht Commission caused a special Census return to be made, and it based its conclusions and districts on that.
On that point, I find that in that special enumeration the place that Deputy Blaney referred to, Illies, is .0, and it is .5 in the Census of 1926.
I suppose if some scheme were devised by which it could be established that the pockets referred to by Deputy Law or communities or groups of people fulfilled the regulation as regards the number, and it were put to the Minister he would consider them.
Yes.
I take it that disposes of the amendments to the Schedule.
Except one. I have an amendment down to remove two electoral areas that were put in by mistake.
Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
Amendment 1 to Section 6 cannot now be moved in view of the failure of the amendment to the Money Resolution. The amendment to the Money Resolution was put down in order to bring this in.
Amendment 1 not moved.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(1) No grant shall be made under this Act in respect of a dwelling-house or in respect of accommodation ancillary to a dwelling-house in respect of which a grant out of public moneys is being or has at any time within seven years before the passing of this Act been made under any other Act of the Oireachtas or any British statute.
(2) No building grant or improving grant shall be made under this Act towards the erection or the improvement or extension (as the case may be) of a dwelling-house unless either—
(a) there is in existence or will be provided with the aid of a grant under this Act or otherwise accommodation for domestic poultry ancillary to and suitable and sufficient in the opinion of the Minister for such dwelling-house, or
(b) the Minister is of opinion that, having regard to all the circumstances, the occupier of such dwelling-house could not be expected to keep domestic poultry.
(3) No building grant or improving grant shall be made under this Act unless either—
(a) there is in existence or will be provided with the aid of a grant under this Act or otherwise accommodation for pigs ancillary to and suitable and sufficient in the opinion of the Minister for such dwelling-house, or
(b) the Minister is of opinion that, having regard to all the circumstances, the occupier of such dwelling-house could not be expected to keep pigs.
I move:
In sub-section (1), lines 56-57, to delete the words "or in respect of accommodation ancillary to a dwelling-house."
I think the Minister has agreed to this amendment. It is brought in simply to prevent a position such as I described on the Second Reading whereby a man who took advantage of the recent grants and got £45 or £50, on seeing his neighbour getting a grant of £80 plus a loan and also a grant for building pig-houses and hen-houses, would endeavour to get the same. It is to prevent that that I am moving this amendment.
Ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an leasú seo. Níl mórán eolais agam ar na rudaí seo ach silim go bhfuil sé beagnach sa mBille cheana.
I am accepting this amendment. It clarifies the section on a point on which I myself was not clear. However, in order to make the position perfectly clear after the first word in the section—"no"—there must be inserted "building grant or improving grant:" No building grant or improving grant shall be made under this Act in respect of a dwelling-house or in respect of accommodation ancillary to a dwelling-house in respect of which a grant out of public moneys is being or has at any time within seven years ... been made. I read the section more or less as the Deputy read it.
Yet Deputy Jasper Wolfe said that I had not read the Bill.
You said that yourself.
No.
There are two amendments to this section. Is that correct?
Yes.
We must take the Minister's amendments before Deputy Tubridy's amendment. The Minister desires, by leave of the Committee, to move in Section 7, sub-section (1), after the word "No" to insert the word "building" and after the word "grant" to insert the words "or improving grant." The section would then read: "No building grant or improving grant shall be made under this Act in respect of ..."
Amendment agreed to.
Deputy Tubridy moves the deletion in line 56 of the words "or in respect of accommodation ancillary to a dwelling-house." The sub-section would then read: "No building grant or improving grant shall be made under this Act in respect of a dwelling-house ..."
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move amendment 3:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"No grant shall be made under this Act to any person—
(a) who is in receipt of a salary or pension other than an old age pension or disability allowance exceeding twenty-five pounds per annum; or
(b) whose Poor Law Valuation exceeds £10."
I think that people in receipt of old age pensions or a disability allowance, which would not include able-bodied people, should benefit under this Bill. My principal reason in moving the amendment is to prevent doctors, teachers, rate collectors, R.I.C. pensioners, and shopkeepers from availing of the benefits to be derived under the Bill. They really are not poor people, and under former Acts, when things were done for the Gaeltacht, a lot of those people benefited. I think this Bill is intended principally for the Irish-speaking poor, and we should limit it to them. It would be very unfair to have people who could avail of other Acts coming in under this measure. It would deprive some poor Irish speaker in the Gaeltacht of a loan or a grant if the type of person or official to whom I have referred were allowed to benefit under the Bill.
On a point of order, I would like to know from the Deputy how is this amendment to be construed. I think that Deputy Tubridy's words do not carry out his intentions. "No grant shall be made under this Act to any person (a) who is in receipt of a salary or pension other than an old age pension or disability allowance exceeding twenty-five pounds per annum." I read that as meaning that no grant can be made except to three classes of people, an old age pensioner, a person whose poor law valuation does not exceed £10, and a person whose disability allowance does not exceed £25.
took the Chair.
Mr. Hogan (Clare):
I would like to have some information upon this amendment in order to ease my mind. I quite agree there is some reasonable doubt as to whether a certain type of person should get benefit under this Bill. I want Deputy Tubridy to clear this matter up. Take the case of a caretaker who has 10/- a week and three acres of land. Does the Deputy see the reactions of this amendment? It would rule out this very type of person I have mentioned, and I think a person of that type would be entitled to benefit under the Act. Take the case of a man with three acres, just place for a cow or other stock. Surely he would be entitled to some consideration. If the amendment is carried it will rule out that person.
My point is that anybody in receipt of 10/- a week in the Gaeltacht is comparatively well-off. The people there are living from hand to mouth; they have no means of subsistence except to sell their few cattle or eggs or get money from America. Any man with 10/- a week is considered a semi-millionaire in the Gaeltacht.
I am acquainted with conditions in areas that apparently Deputy Tubridy does not know very much about. I was anxious to hear the case made for this amendment, and I must say it has not impressed me in the least. I do not know anything more farfetched than Deputy Tubridy's fear that shopkeepers or teachers or bankers would come in under this Bill. Other sections of the Bill make ample provision against that, particularly the section where the question of valuation is taken into account.
That is only as regards three-fifths of the expenditure.
Three-fifths will eat up the most of this money. Surely, it is not suggested that applications from the type of people the Deputy has mentioned would be entertained. If we have any intention at all of preserving the principle of the Bill it ought not to be maintained in any sane assembly that people of the type the Deputy indicated will be included amongst those who will derive advantages. Deputy Hogan has made the point that I was anxious to make, and that is that the insertion of this amendment is likely to rule out people who should be considered very deserving. Take the case of a person with some very trifling salary up to the amount mentioned in the amendment, and a tiny patch of land. Nobody could suggest but that that type of person would be very deserving; yet, that very person would be ruled out under this amendment. Unless a much stronger case is made for the amendment, I could not support it.
I feel in general agreement with the idea that there should be a limitation as to the class of people to whom this measure should apply. I think, however, Deputy Tubridy's method of arriving at the limitation is somewhat too narrow. I do not think you will get a satisfactory definition by confining the amendment to pensions and salaries in the manner specified. You might have the case of a carpenter, who would make about £2 or £3 a week, entitled to a grant under this Bill, whereas an Army pensioner, who might be making far less of a total income, would be ruled out. If you are to have a limitation it ought to be a general limitation somewhat in the terms that a person whose income from all sources exceeds a certain figure should not be entitled to any benefit.
I am quite agreeable to that.
That would be much better than to confine it to people with salaries and pensions. There might be other classes of people with no salaries or pensions to whom it would be hardly just to give benefits. Under the amendment as it stands we might be excluding certain people who might have salaries or pensions but who would be really deserving of consideration.
I quite agree with the view expressed by Deputy Tierney.
I am not inclined to be hostile to the intentions behind this amendment at all. How I look at it is this: that it is neither going to do good nor harm. I believe that there are provisions in the Bill to prevent absolutely the type of person that the Deputy speaks of coming in under the provisions of the Bill. In Section 3 you have provided "Where in the opinion of the Minister a dwelling-house in the Gaeltacht is wholly unsuitable for the proper and healthy accommodation of the occupier thereof and his family the Minister may" and so on. That is one of the overriding sections—that the house in which the person lives is absolutely unsuitable for the proper and healthy accommodation of the occupier and his family. Then again in Section 7 there is an overriding provision. Then there is the provision that preference must be given to Irish-speaking householders and there is a further provision that the preference in these cases must be given in cases where the house is most insanitary. This imposes on us under the Bill as it stands a statutory obligation to make inquiry into the cases. That is to say that where a person makes application we have got to make inquiries on these two bases, first, as to whether the house is absolutely insanitary and, second, whether the householder and his family are Irish speakers. I think there are sufficient overriding provisions in the Bill to prevent anything like what Deputy Tubridy feared happening. If I had the slightest fear that a school teacher or —without meaning any disrespect to them—an ex-R.I.C. pensioner could benefit under this Bill, I would try to get in some amendment that would prevent such a thing from happening. I am satisfied that the Bill as it stands is sufficiently watertight to prevent that or any possibility of that. It does leave a certain amount of discretion in the matter to the Minister. I do not know that you could have a Minister here who could possibly stand behind giving grants to cases like those the Deputy mentioned. No Minister could possibly do it.
I know of a man who has a salary of £5 a week in the Gaeltacht. His house is insanitary. It is not a fit house for the man and his family.
There is a discretion left to the Minister in such a case. Supposing in that case this man did apply for a grant, then there would be some investigation. Suppose his house is declared insanitary; the thing will have to go back, and what his income is will be shown. It will be pointed out to the Department by the inspector that this person could avail of the existing housing legislation and that he does not come within the category to which this Act is intended to apply. If there is not some confidence in the administration of the thing I do not know where it will end. If I had the slightest fear that anything that the Deputy suggests might happen in the way of these grants being available for persons to whom the Deputy refers I would accept his amendment right off the reel.
I would like to ask the Minister what is the objection to making it clear? I do not think it is clear at all. The Minister has only given one example "where in the opinion of the Minister a dwelling-house in the Gaeltacht is wholly unsuitable for the proper and healthy accommodation of the occupier." Surely that is not an overriding section.
I gave the provision with reference to Irish-speaking householders as well.
Take Section 11, sub-section (4), on which the Minister depends a great deal. Under that section at least three-fifths of the moneys available for making grants under this Bill must be spent in the Fior-Gaeltacht area, and in cases under a certain valuation. There is nothing in that to prevent persons with a valuation of £10 or more getting loans or grants. There is nothing whatever in the Bill to prevent it. There are no definite provisions by which a person could be excluded. The £10 limit was always accepted as a limit for small holdings, and I think it could be agreed that the £10 limit would be accepted as regards valuation.
I am strongly in favour of what Deputy Tierney says that there should be a definite clause confining loans and grants to persons whose income from all sources does not exceed a certain figure. Our idea was that in the case of the salary or pension or regular weekly wage, it was much easier to compute the income than in the case of a person who had a small shop. I think it would be invidious that certain classes of persons should be excluded on account of their occupations, because their occupations are interrelated. I think there should be some overriding clause preventing persons over a certain income from benefiting under these grants. Such persons should be excluded.
I am really in a difficulty about this. I am satisfied myself that the Bill is sufficiently clear and that we are enabled under the Bill to prevent what Deputy Tubridy fears. If I had any fear to the contrary I would put in a specific provision including cases of the type that Deputy Tierney has suggested and that Deputy Derrig now recommends. But I have no fear and I do not quite see how at the moment I could do it. I think between Section 3, which refers to wholly unsuitable houses, and the section which provides for Irish-speaking householders and houses that are most insanitary and Section 11 which provides that three-fifths of the moneys available for making the grants must be in the Fíor-Gaeltacht, I am satisfied that the Bill is as watertight as possible and that the persons that Deputy Tubridy fears might benefit under the Bill will not benefit. At any rate I believe that some discretion must be left to the administration. Some confidence must be placed in the administration. In looking into the applications where inquiries are made the administration must see that the proper persons must benefit and that persons who were never intended to come under the provisions of the Bill shall be excluded.
I know that provision is made about Irish speakers. We want the class of Irish speakers defined and I do not think it is clear enough in this Bill. I do not think it is satisfactory to leave the whole question of the means in such a general way. This amendment is very necessary. It is felt so by us and by most people in the Gaeltacht.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 69.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kent, William R.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipperary).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, William Archer.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Ba mhaith liom go glacfadh an Dáil leis an leasú seo leanas atá ar an bpáipéar:
To add at the end of sub-section (1) the proviso:—
"Provided that in the case of a person to whom a grant out of public moneys in respect of a dwelling-house or in respect of accommodation ancillary to a dwelling-house has been made within seven years before the passing of this Act, the Minister may, subject to the provisions of this Act and regulations made thereunder, issue to the Commissioners a certificate in the prescribed form that such person may be granted a loan for improvement purposes under this Act of such sum, not exceeding forty pounds, as the Minister shall think proper and shall specify in such certificate."
Tá daoine a rinne tithe le goirid agus nach bhfuair ach £45. Daoine bochta isea iad agus tá cuid acu ag tógáil tithe fá láthair. Ní bhfuighidh siad tada faoi 'n mBille seo agus ba mhaith liom dá bhfuigheadh siad suas le £40 mar iasacht. Nílim ag iarraidh rud ar bith in aisge dóbhtha; níl me ach ag iarradh go bhfuigidh siad iasacht suas go dtí £40. Na daoine atá ar an taoibh eile de'n teorann, na daoine nach ndeárna rud ar bith do dtí anois, gheobhaidh na daoine seo £80 d'iasacht agus £80 in aisge. Ach na daoine nach raibh cho-leisgeamhai leis na daoine sin, ní bhfuighidh siad tada. Nílim ag iarraidh rud ar bith in aisge ar son na ndaoine seo. Mar a dubhairt mé, tá mé ag iarraidh go mbeadh iasacht suas go dtí £40 le fáil acu. Níl leas ar bith le fáil ag na daoine seo faoi'n Agricultural Credit Corporation.
I think there is a good deal to be said for this amendment. As I understand it, the matter stands in this way: We have decided that under Section 7 no building or improvement grant can be given to any person who, within the last seven years, has already received a grant of public money under our other Housing Acts. With regard to the effect of that, take the case of a man who, in the last twelve months, received a grant of £45 towards building a new house. It is obvious that the sum of £45 has not gone anywhere near meeting the cost of the building of that new house, but that person has been a saving and a decent man and has done everything that he possibly could to help himself. He has, perhaps, borrowed from relations, and with the amount he has borrowed, and the little savings that he has put by he has put up this new house. There may still be a certain amount of work that it is desirable to have done to the house, but under Section 7, as I understand it, such a man as that is precluded from getting any assistance either by way of grant or by way of loan.
What Deputy Mongan has said is that under this Bill you are giving to his neighbour a possible grant of £80 and a loan of £80. Side by side with the person who is getting that grant and loan you have a man who, through his own exertions and the expenditure of his own money, has succeeded in putting up a new house or other works with the assistance the State has given him. If a dweller in the Gaeltacht had not done anything in the way of helping himself he would be entitled to receive a grant of £80 and a loan of £80. We are not asking that amount for the man who, through his own exertions and the expenditure of his own money, has succeeded in putting up a new house for himself with the assistance of a grant of £45, but what Deputy Mongan does ask is that though such a man has received a grant of £45 he shall not be excluded from getting further assistance to the extent of a loan not exceeding £45. That seems to me to be a very reasonable suggestion, and I hope the Minister will see his way to accept it.
We have not a great deal of sympathy with Deputy Mongan's amendment. It seems to us that if you are going to alter the decision that other people who have got loans during the past seven years are now going to get either loans or grants you will be making an unfair differentiation. While there may be hardships imposed on people who had the initiative and the enterprise to get certain works done under the facilities offered, other people now in better conditions will seem to be getting additional privileges. We do not see how you can exclude grants and include loans. We fail to see how you can tamper at all with the provisions so that all persons getting State moneys in one way or another during the past seven years shall be included without making a mess of the whole thing. Deputy Law has pointed out that £45 is not enough, or that people did not get the work completed satisfactorily with that amount. I do not understand that argument at all. Persons who got either grants or loans got them for a specific purpose. The work was inspected and found satisfactory.
The people knew what they were doing when they undertook this, and now to give them additional facilities would seem to be amending or adding to the facilities they have got already. We would be really saying that people had got facilities though this House thought them sufficient, and that, therefore, we should increase those facilities. I think if we go back seven years we would be entering upon dangerous grounds. I do not see the point of Deputy Law's argument that people who got a grant for specific purposes and did work with the help of that grant should now come along and be entitled to claim additional assistance to that already given under other Housing Acts. They were insufficient in a number of cases, but they were the best the State could give.
I do not think that Deputy Mongan's amendment should apply in cases where loans or grants were given in the past seven years. I think his idea was that where grants will be given a loan of £45 should also be given in order to place the people receiving the grant on the same level as their neighbours who under this Act will receive a grant amounting to £80. The grant of £45 would not go far even in the buying of materials, and I think it would be unfair that people who started building operations which they have not completed should not get the additional grant of £45. I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment.
Sin é an rud a bhí in mo cheann. B'fhéidir nach dtuigim an Béarla chó maith leis na Teachtaí ar an dtaoibh thall agus nár dhubhairt mé an rud a theastuigh uaim. Caithfidh mé labhairt i dteangain eile le ciall an leasuithe do thabhairt amach i geeart. Sul a n-abroidh mé focal ar bith i mBearla caithfidh pardún do ghlaca ag muinntir Chonamara faoi Bhéarla labhairt annseo.
I have to apologise to my people in the Gaeltacht for speaking in English in this House. I never did it before, but I have to do it now in order to convey to the House what I intend by my amendment. What I intend is that the people who got a grant of £45 towards the building of their houses, and who received no other assistance, should be placed on a level with the people, who are perhaps as well off, who under this Act will get a grant of £80 and a loan of £80. I hope the benefit of this measure will be given to those for whom I am speaking. I say the best thing the House could do would be to give poor unfortunate men a loan of £45. I do not want anything free for them. I want the people to get a loan up to £45. I can boast that I know a crowd of people who are doing this at £45, but they would not be able to go on with it. It would bring them beyond their depth. Side by side with the people who get £80 will be those who only get £40. That is, if you like, putting a premium on laziness.
I discussed this amendment fairly thoroughly with Deputy Mongan, and I thought he was satisfied that my objections to it were reasonable. If, as Deputy Brodrick and Deputy Mongan now say, a person is able to avail of the existing housing legislation to get a grant of £45, well and good; that is not the person this Bill is intended to cater for. This Bill is intended to cater for a person who is unable to avail of existing housing legislation. Undoubtedly, if the amendment were accepted it would enable houses built under existing legislation to be considerably improved, but would not that take so much money away from the purposes underlying the intention of the Bill? Any such cases as the Deputy referred to would be almost ruled out by Clause 3. Surely if they had a grant for housing under the £45 regulations, they cannot be living in insanitary houses, so that Clause 3 would practically rule them out. It would involve a very substantial change in the Bill, and would absolutely preclude all stages from being put through to-day. For that reason I would like the Deputy to reconsider the matter and not to press the amendment. Border line cases would need some consideration. The persons who he thinks were active, who availed of existing legislation, are border line cases, but a neighbour who benefits to the extent of £45 more might well be lazy. It is a question for consideration, but I would not like the amendment to be pressed at present.
Perhaps I could simplify the matter by reminding Deputy Mongan that those people who are at present erecting houses on a grant of £45, under the recent Housing Act, can borrow a sum equivalent to double the amount, that is £90, from the county council. Is not that a fact, and would it not simplify the matter?
That is so.
Tar éis a ndubhairt an tAire iarraim cead ar an dTigh an leasú do tharraingt siar anois. Ach tá súil agam go geuimhneochaidh an tAire ar an gceist seo.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Is it not a fact that county councils can make provision in regard to the issue of loans equivalent to double the amount of the grants, because I know that Louth County Council have given a grant of £90? Needless to say, what I referred to on the Second Reading is now very obvious, the question of differentiating between different classes of people. Deputy Mongan sees the force of the argument now.
I am not responsible for former Housing Acts.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Sections 8, 9 and 10 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 11
(1) The aggregate amount of the grants and loans to be made under this Act shall not exceed the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand pounds.
(2) The amount of an individual grant made under this Act shall not exceed—
(a) in the case of a building grant, the sum of eighty pounds, or
(b) in the case of an improving grant, the sum of forty pounds, or
(c) in the case of a poultry-house building grant or a piggery building grant, the sum of five pounds, or
(d) in the case of a poultry-house improving grant or a piggery improving grant, the sum of two pounds and ten shillings.
(3) In the making of building grants and improving grants the Minister shall give a preference to the occupiers of dwelling-houses in which the Irish language is habitually used as the home language of the household, and amongst occupiers of such dwelling-houses the Minister shall give a preference to the occupiers of dwelling-houses having the greater overcrowding, the worse sanitary conditions and the lower valuation under the Valuation Acts.
(4) So far as may be practicable having regard to the number and local distribution of the cases in which it appears to the Minister to be proper to make grants under this Act and to the foregoing provisions of this section, at least three-fifths of the moneys available for making grants under this Act shall be applied in making grants to occupiers of dwelling-houses situate in district electoral divisions in the Gaeltacht in which the product of the division of the aggregates at the passing of this Act of the valuation under the Valuation Acts of all hereditaments in the district electoral division valued under those Acts at twenty pounds or less by the population of the district electoral division according to the Census of 1926 does not exceed the sum of twenty-one shillings.
I move amendment 5:—
In sub-section (2) (b), line 43, to delete the word "forty" and substitute the word "sixty."
My reason for moving this amendment is that I am well aware that £40 is inadequate for improving and roofing an old house. The securing of sand and lime and the masonry of a new house is the smallest part of the outlay, while the roofing, the windows, the doors and the floors, and perhaps raising the side-walls, will entail a much greater expenditure than the half which £40 is expected to cover. For that reason I desire to have the amount raised to £60, as anything less would be inadequate.
I agree with this amendment. The grant for reconstructing a house should be increased from £40 to £60. The difference between the reconstruction of a dwelling-house and the building of a new house is not so great as the difference between £40 and £80. If you take a one-storey building in the Gaeltacht at the present time, where the side-walls are eight or nine feet high, it would take £9 or £10 to bring the structure to the height to carry another storey if the walls are good, but because these people will not get more than £40 the building would be demolished and they would build from the foundation.
I would urge the Minister to accept the amendment. As Deputy Law pointed out on a previous occasion, this is merely permissive; it merely fixes £40 as the limit. As Deputy Blaney pointed out, the acceptance of £60 as a limit for improvements might, as a matter of fact, save money to the State which would otherwise be spent by grants for new buildings.
I desire to support the amendment which I hope the Minister will see his way to accept. As I pointed out on the Second Reading, under the 1925 Housing Act, which did not apply to the Gaeltacht, inasmuch as people there were too poor to take advantage of it, the people in the cities and towns, who were a comparatively wealthy class, were able to get larger grants than are available for the Gaeltacht. I think what has been done for a comparatively wealthy class of people should be done for the people who are going to benefit under this Bill, and I hope, if the Minister does not see his way to accept the amendment, that Deputies on the Government Benches from the Gaeltacht will bring pressure to bear on him to accept it.
I support this amendment. Forty pounds will not roof a house. The principal things in the improvement of a house are the roofing and new windows and doors, and £40 will not do that. What will happen is that people will naturally build new houses, although the old houses might be all right if improved. Sixty pounds will roof a three-roomed house in the Gaeltacht and provide for the putting in of windows and doors. The whole House is in favour of this amendment, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
I do not know how the Deputy has come to the conclusion that the whole House is in favour of it. I am not. I think that a £40 grant and a £40 loan, involving a total expenditure of £80, which represents half the cost of the assistance that is to be given for putting up a new house, is quite reasonable.
I understood from the Minister that loans would be exceptional, and that he would rely on grants mainly, realising that these people cannot borrow money.
I hope as far as possible to rely on grants. I hope that the necessity for loans will be rather an emergency than normal, because I know the difficulty that these people will have in repaying. But the provision is in the Bill for a grant of £40 and a loan of £40 for improvements; the provision is in the Bill for a grant of £80 and a loan of £80 for all new houses. The estimate that we have had in connection with the details of this matter is that the roofing will generally cost— that is, the outlay outside a man's own labour—about £30, and the windows about £10. I am absolutely satisfied that this provision is a sound one, and I could not agree to any extension of it. Any extension would probably mean the watering down of the building of new houses. A £60 grant involves in my mind anyhow, an expenditure of £120, and if a person is going to expend £120 he might as well expend it on building a new house; he might as well go the whole hog and look for the £80 grant. Deputy Blaney made the point that a further £20 would enable a man to raise his walls and to make his house a two-storey one. I wonder why the Deputy should want that. Has Deputy Blaney any particular flair for the two-storey house? I think that as a farmer's house it looks abominable. I would prefer a one-storey house if sufficient accommodation were available.
I disagree with the Minister on that point.
That is purely a personal opinion. At any rate, I am satisfied that the provision of a £40 grant and a £40 loan meets the case entirely, and I cannot accept the amendment.
I think what the Minister said in regard to this question of a loan is rather misleading the House, because it will be remembered that on the Second Reading of the Bill the Minister used an expression which was tantamount to saying that the ability of a person to repay a loan must be taken into consideration when loans are made. The overwhelming majority of the people who will make applications for the reconstruction grants are in such a poor position that they will not be able to give any guarantee as to the repayment of the loan. Consequently if the Minister insists on that stipulation very few of the most necessitous cases will be able to get loans. On that ground I suggest that the Minister should reconsider his decision, because the majority of the people who will look for reconstruction grants of £40 will not be financially stable enough to give guarantees or security in order to obtain the loans.
I do not know what condition may be made in the regulations for securities or otherwise, but I will say this at least, that loans will not be granted and should not be granted unless the persons concerned are able to repay them. It is all very fine and it is very easy to be free with other people's money. If we are making a grant we make a grant, but if we are making loans let them be loans, and let us not give loans knowing that they will not be repaid. We should not misname them; if they are loans they are loans and if they are grants they are grants. I will require to be perfectly satisfied that when a loan is given it will be repaid.
Can the Minister explain how any person in the Gaeltacht will be able to give a guarantee for the repayment of a loan—
I have just said that I do not know what the regulations about guarantees will be.
—in view of the fact that very few people in the Gaeltacht at present can get people to go security for them for loans owing to the conditions that prevail?
But surely the Deputy must be aware of my promises.
Promises. Yes, I am.
You might repeat the Sligo-Leitrim lot.
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 48.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Conlan, Martin.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, William Archer.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Colbert, James.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kent, William R.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipperary).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and P. Doyle; Níl, Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Motion declared carried.
Before we proceed with the next amendment, I would like to know what is the position in regard to the motion for the adjournment. On Wednesday the question was raised, and we on those benches were given to understand that a certain amount of time would be allowed, on the motion for the adjournment to-day, to discuss the question of unemployment. I would like to know is it proposed to go on after 2 o'clock and, if necessary, will the House sit later?
I understand that at the commencement of business to-day the President explained what the procedure was with regard to business and the motion for the adjournment.
I would like to point out that this matter was raised on Wednesday, and the Vice-President stated that if necessary the House would sit late to give time for a discussion in regard to the question of unemployment. I think that that promise should be fulfilled before the House adjourns.
If my interpretation of the Standing Orders is correct, notice of an intention to sit late should be given before twelve o'clock.
Does not the responsibility for that lie on the shoulders of the President?
No. I endeavoured to conserve time, but last night, through some extraordinary mentality on the part of Deputies, a good deal of the time of the House was wasted and my calculations were upset.
I think that the President knows very well that Deputies sitting on these benches had no responsibility for that.
One of them participated.
I understand that the President was not in the House when the Vice-President made the promise that time would be afforded on the motion for the adjournment to deal with the question of unemployment. I want to know from the President does he object to have that promise carried out.
I understand that the Vice-President mentioned what the Government's intention in regard to business was, but that was portion of the contract, that this Bill should be finished at a certain time. If the Vice-President, in a moment of generosity, gave his signature to any larger cheque than that which I authorised, I regret it.
I said that after certain business had been done, the remaining time would be available for the discussion of a motion which Deputy Lemass wished to bring forward, and the discussion of the question of unemployment which was mentioned by Deputy Davin and Deputy Cassidy. I understood this morning that the position was, that it was hoped that this Bill would be finished at one o'clock. If it had been finished at one o'clock an opportunity would certainly be available for a discussion of the question to which the Deputy refers.
I suggest to the President and the Vice-President that time is not so pressing that they cannot provide some opportunity for the discussion of this question, seeing that the House is going to adjourn for two months.
This matter was discussed at the commencement of public business, and the order of business for the day was announced and agreed to by the House.
On the definite understanding that the Vice-President's promise would be fulfilled.
The President announced at the beginning of public business what the order of business would be. That was agreed to by the House and business has proceeded in accordance with that order.
If the President is not prepared to allow the Dáil to sit later, is he prepared to let the Dáil sit next week? I suggest that time is not so pressing that some time cannot be given to this urgent problem, seeing that we are going to adjourn for two months?
Is the President aware that the total number of days on which the Dáil has met during this session is sixteen? The manner in which Deputies were brought up from the country for two days during six or seven weeks shows that neither the President nor the Front Bench has respect for the capability of the people to pay or the manner in which Deputies' travelling expenses have been incurred in coming up here.
These are all points that should have been made this morning.
May I point out that the House was labouring under a misunderstanding, and that if we had thought at twelve o'clock that this situation would have arisen after one o'clock, we would then have moved, and have kept within the bounds of order, for the continuance of the sitting beyond the ordinary time of adjournment. Now there is a different position, and I do not charge the President with responsibility for it, but he is availing of the position into which we have been led owing to misunderstanding, and our hands are tied. I think the President should consider that.
The whole of the trouble arose out of the endeavour to pass a Bill for the protection of perjurers.
We are not going to discuss what happened yesterday. The order of business was stated this morning at the commencement of business and no exception was taken to that statement. The President stated that he proposed to take the Gaeltacht Housing Bill and put it through all its stages, and that any time that was available after the passing of the Bill up to two o'clock would be given for the discussion of questions on the adjournment. That was agreed to this morning. I make that statement for the information of Deputies who were not here at the time, and for the information of the House.
We are anxious that the Gaeltacht Housing Bill would go through, but I suggest that the President, the Vice-President or the Leas-Cheann Comhairle should not hold out on a technicality of this description. We were led to believe from what was stated this morning and on Wednesday last that a definite time would be allocated to discuss the question of unemployment. Now we find that we are going to adjourn for two months, and on a technical point of that description we are going to be held up, and the President or Vice-President will not provide any time for this discussion. I say that is scandalous. We have been misled just as the unemployed have been misled.
It is not a question of a technical point. This is a matter that should have been raised this morning.
It was raised last Wednesday.
A promise was given and we accepted it on the understanding that it would be fulfilled. If the President, or whoever was acting for him, realised at 12 o'clock to-day that it could not be carried out and that the business as regulated by the Government would last as long as 2 o'clock, I suggest that the responsibility lies with the President or his deputy.
The Deputy might have represented that to me just before 12 o'clock and, if he did, we would have a different situation now.
With the consent of the whole House I think the time could be extended.
If the whole House consents I think that that could be done. It is prescribed that there must be a motion to sit late, but I think the House by general consent could sit after 2 o'clock.
The House could easily decide to do that and be strictly fair to all parties because there can be no vote after the Adjournment and all members need not remain.
We on this side of the House consent.
I suggest that it could be done by moving that Standing Orders be suspended.
Not necessarily. With general consent it could be done.
We on these benches are quite agreeable that extra time should be given. The Fianna Fáil Deputies are also agreeable and I suppose the Independent Deputies will also agree.
We are all agreed. We have just as much interest in the unemployed as any other Deputy.
Then I hope you will take part in the debate and try and get something done for them.
A Deputy
We did so, long before you.
With regard to the proposal to devote time to this very important question I think that the President should concede to the general demand and sit later than 2 o'clock. He could suggest the time we should sit. I suggest that it should be, at least, an hour.
The proposal is that the motion would be taken at 2 o'clock, that the Dáil adjourn until 12th February and then that the House should sit later, but that no division be taken. I suggest that we sit not later than 2.30. I cannot be here after that as I have an engagement at three o'clock which was undertaken some weeks ago.
Why does the President suggest that no division should be taken in regard to this question?
Let us get clear on one point. Do I take it that the President's position is that the discussion on this Bill should go on until 2 o'clock?
Not necessarily. Why carry it on until 2 o'clock if it is not necessary?
Until 2 o'clock if necessary in order to conclude this Bill, and when this Bill is passed, we will then take up the question of the long adjournment until 2.30 o'clock.
Yes, I presume the Order will be made at 2 o'clock for the Adjournment.
What about Deputy Blaney's motion?
That would not be interfered with, as it would be discussed from 2.30 until 3 o'clock in the ordinary course. Might I suggest to Deputies that they are wasting a lot of valuable time?
Are you going to allow only half-an-hour extra time?
Deputy Cassidy should not address that question to me. It is not within my province to allot the time of the House.
I was asking the President through the Chair.
I want to take the half-hour myself.
I move amendment 6:
In sub-section (2) to delete paragraphs (c) and (d) and substitute two new paragraphs as follows:—
"(c) in the case of a poultry-house building grant, the sum of eight pounds, and in the case of a piggery building grant, the sum of five pounds, or
(d) in the case of a poultry-house improving grant, the sum of four pounds, and in the case of a piggery improving grant, the sum of two pounds and ten shillings."
If a poultry-house is to be built at all, and is to be of any service, it certainly must be made comfortable and warm. If it is not, the production of eggs, which I take it is the main object, will not materialise, because, of necessity, the fowl must be kept warm before they can be brought to a laying condition. For that reason I take it that it must necessarily be a wooden house. If it is to be a wooden house, the amount specified in the Bill, namely, a £5 grant and a £5 loan, would be entirely insufficient to erect a house of sufficient size and warmth. That is taking it that not less than one hundred fowl would be kept, because I think it is generally acknowledged that anything less would be entirely unprofitable to keep. You cannot house poultry in a stone house, because it would be too cold; you could not bring it up to the temperature necessary to keep fowl in a healthy and warm condition. For that reason, I hold that the amount allowed in the poultry part of the section should be increased to £8. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment in order that the grant may be of some service to the localities to which it is intended to apply.
I support the amendment, because in the Gaeltacht tea and sugar and such commodities are traded for eggs in the shops, and people, therefore, will avail of the Bill who depend largely for their food on dealing in eggs. With the small grant proposed in the Bill, a poultry-house could not be put up that would be suitable for the keeping of hens, and that would be sufficiently warm. At present the people keep their hens in the kitchen, and that practice will be continued unless something is done to provide a decent warm building. As poultry is such an important factor in the Gaeltacht, I support the amendment.
I also support the amendment, as poultry is one of the greatest essentials to the small uneconomic farmers in the Gaeltacht. Under the Act which is at present in force eggs can only be exported under licence, and they must be clean and in good condition. It is, therefore, necessary that the poultry-house should be such that the eggs would be in proper condition. With an ordinary four-walled house, with no proper provision for nesting or anything like that, a person cannot comply with the regulations. A grant of anything less than £8 would, therefore, be insufficient.
I cannot accept the amendment. The estimated cost of a poultry-house for the particular type of place that is in our mind is of £10 or something slightly less. I will admit that I do not know as much about poultry as Deputies Kilroy, Tubridy and Blaney, but in this matter I take my information from the Department of Agriculture. It is not a question of providing for 100 hens. It is a question of these very small holders. The estimated number of hens is from 24 to 30 and the estimated cost of a house would be something like £10. The estimated cost of the material in different places is: Galway £9 5s.; Kerry £9 16s.; Donegal £9 19s. We do not provide as a grant all the sum necessary for the dwelling-house or the piggery or the poultry-house. We provide half grant and half loan, generally speaking. We hold that the provision of £5 as a grant and £5 as a loan will meet the case. Deputy Kilroy said that a wooden house would be warmer and so on. A wooden house is not contemplated. These sums are, presumably, for a stone house or a cement house or something of that kind.
That defeats the whole intention of the Bill.
I take my lectures in agriculture from the Department of Agriculture.
To establish an industry in a country place with 20 hens is beyond the ridiculous, because at any time there will be only a small fraction of these producing eggs.
We are not pretending to establish poultry farms in any sense. We are merely hoping that by keeping from 24 to 30 hens on these holdings the people will so add to their income that they will be somewhat better off than they are at present.
Hens kept in a £5 poultry-house will not lay.
It is a £10 poultry-house.
There is a strong point to be put to the Minister in connection with that. If it is recognised that the Gaeltacht has no industry, and if the difference between a £5 and an £8 grant for a poultry-house is going to bring about an industry, I do not see how the Minister can confine himself to £5. I do hold that to keep poultry on a fairly large scale is profitable, but no one could hold that keeping poultry to the extent of twenty or thirty fowl is going to be profitable or anything like an industry.
The Department of Agriculture is looking after that side of the matter and also the particular breeds of hens that will be provided for those areas. I think that this provision meets the case which it is proposed to meet.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment 7 not moved.
I move amendment 7 (a):—
In sub-section (4), page 6, line 64, to delete all words after the words "in which" to the end of the sub-section, page 7, line 5, and substitute the words—"the valuation under the Valuation Acts of all hereditaments (other than hereditaments valued at more than twenty pounds) in the district electoral division when divided by the population of the district electoral division according to the Census of 1926 yields a sum not exceeding twenty-one shillings."
This is to make clearer sub-section (4) of Section 11 which, as it is in the Bill, appeared to me, and I think to many others who read it, to be extremely vague.
Amendment agreed to.
On the section, I should like to point out that it simply says that a preference shall be given to occupiers of dwelling-houses in which the Irish language is habitually used as the language of the home. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent English speakers, that is, those who are in the habit of speaking the English language, from getting benefits under it. It is well known that in some Gaeltacht areas people who have Irish and who have been put down on the Census as having Irish, not alone do not speak the language, but very often, unfortunately, are ashamed to admit that they have Irish or to use it. We want the Bill to be used as far as possible for developing the speaking of Irish. We want it to be definitely shown to people asking for a grant that if they have not the Irish language they are at a serious disadvantage. Therefore I urge upon the Minister the necessity for giving a practical example to these people by having officials who will be competent to speak Irish, because there is nothing that counts so much in dealing with these Irish-speaking areas as having officials who speak Irish. People will then see that the language counts; that it is of some importance; that it is definitely taking the ascendancy; that in future, in this country, the people who have not Irish will be at a serious disadvantage, and that it is up to them to acquire it. I know it may not be necessary, but I want to state publicly that that is our feeling in the matter.
resumed the Chair.
In the selection of officials to administer the Bill that will naturally be taken into consideration. My first outlook in this matter will be to get a man in charge who can do the job well. If I can get a man with Irish, who is the best man for the job, well and good, but if I have to go outside the category of Irish speakers to get such a man I am not going to bind myself down that in the administration of this Bill nobody but an Irish speaker shall be put on the job. I shall have to look, first of all, for the most efficient person. Generally, of course, I agree with the view expressed by Deputy Derrig.
I want to say, again, that in the matter of old age pensions administration and in the Post Office administration, harm was done to the language in the Gaeltacht because the Government did not force the position, as in the schools, and if there is not a definite improvement in the administration of this first Gaeltacht Bill, then we will have the question coming up here in the House, and we will have the individuals concerned made the subject of discussion here in this House.
Section 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 were agreed to and ordered to be added to the Bill.
THE SCHEDULE.
I move amendment 14:
"Under the heading `In the County of Donegal' to delete the following places:—`Rosnakill' and `Templedouglas.' "
These places were inserted in the Schedule by mistake. They do not come within the 25 per cent. provision.
I presume it is definitely understood that if a good case can be made to the Minister that a special enumeration has been carried out in a particular area, he will consider whether that area should not be included in the Schedule.
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That the Schedule as amended be the Schedule to the Bill"—put and agreed to.
TITLE.
Amendment 22 not moved.
Title agreed to.
Bill, with amendments, ordered to be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill was reported with amendments, received for final consideration and passed.
Ordered to be sent to the Seanad.