Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Jun 1934

Vol. 53 No. 10

In Committee on Finance. - Housing (Gaeltacht) (Amendment) Bill, 1934—Second Stage.

Minister for Lands (Senator Connolly)

I move: That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

This Bill is being introduced to amend and extend the Gaeltacht Housing Act of 1929, which was the Principal Act dealing with the Gaeltacht housing. The 1929 Act, which was the first and Principal Act, made provision for the sum of £250,000; subsequently under the amending Act of 1931, an additional £100,000 was provided, making a total provision for grants and loans for housing in the Gaeltacht of £350,000. The present Act proposes to increase this amount by an additional sum not exceeding £300,000, thus increasing the amount under the Principal Act to a sum not exceeding £650,000.

Section 3, sub-section (1) increases the former maximum grant of £80 in the case of occupiers of holdings of a poor law valuation of £10 and under as follows:—(a) in the case of an occupier of a holding of a valuation of £5 or less, the maximum grant is increased to £90; (b) in the case of an occupier of a holding of a valuation of more than £5 but not exceeding £10, the maximum grant is increased to £85; (c) in the case of an occupier of a holding of a valuation exceeding £10, the maximum grant remains at the former figure of £80. In determining the amount of the valuation of the holding, regard will be had to all the holdings in the possession of the applicant, if he should own other holdings than that on which the existing dwelling stands.

Sub-section (2) limits the amount of grant and loan that may be made under the Principal Act to a sum not exceeding £160. By this sub-section in cases where an increase in grant is given, the loan (the maximum amount of which was formerly £80) shall be correspondingly reduced so that the total amount of grant and loan shall not exceed the £160. Experience of the Principal Act has shown that there are substantial numbers of poorer Irish-speaking homesteads in the Gaeltacht unable to avail of the Act through inability to provide the money required for the erection of a house over and above the amount of the grant or to assume liability for a loan of the amount necessary. The increase of the grant in the cases of poorer persons is designed to meet this difficulty. At the same time the reduction as from 1st October next in the rate of interest payable on loans from 5½ per cent. to 4¾ per cent. will operate to make the burden of a loan in all cases less onerous.

Section 4 restricts the operation of the Act to Irish-speaking households, i.e., homesteads where the Irish language is in habitual use. It is felt that as the primary purpose of the Bill is for the benefit of the Irish-speaking districts, the operation of the Act should be confined to Irish-speaking households. The Local Government housing provisions are considered adequate to cover all non-Irish-speaking households, i.e., those in which English is in habitual use. While the financial assistance under the latter Act (the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1932) is not substantially less advantageous, the administration of the Gaeltacht Act extends to the Irish-speaking families a larger measure of co-operation in the building of the houses, the absence of which co-operation in the past had proved an effective barrier against participation by those families in the advantages of earlier Housing Acts. That circumstance is the justification for this Act and the explanation why it would be impracticable to deal with the problem of housing in the Gaeltacht through the instrumentality of the general housing legislation of the Saorstát. The surveyor of the Department supervises the selection and laying out of the site. As soon as the stones and other materials, which the head of the family can himself supply, are on the site, an instalment of the grant is made to enable him to engage the skilled labour. The Department organises a scheme of combined purchase of the materials which the head of the family cannot himself provide. Under this scheme he is able to procure these materials at specially cheap rates. The quality of the materials is ensured by the Department's surveyor, who is empowered to reject any defective goods. The Department arranges, where desired, to guarantee the payment of the supplier's account out of the grant or loan in order to establish the credit of the purchaser. By these means the small-holder is protected at every point against excessive charges, defective materials and other risks. The administration of the Act is carried out in the Irish language. The surveyors with whom the Irish-speaking families in the Gaeltacht have to deal are able to discuss the business with them in their own language and use that language only.

Section 5 repeals the provision in the Principal Act by which three-fifths of the available funds were earmarked for certain areas to the extent to which those areas could absorb this proportion. Since the passage of the Principal Act special attention has been devoted to these areas and a marked impression has been made on housing conditions there. While the policy which underlay the provision will be continued it is felt that the provision itself is no longer necessary and might tend to hamper the effective administration of the Act.

Section 6 repeals the Amending Act of 1931 and makes the funds provided more readily available for the provision of houses in the Gaeltacht. The Amending Act of 1931 imposed certain restrictions by the Department of Finance and it is felt that these are not now necessary and might unnecessarily delay the operation of the Bill.

Mr. Lynch

The first thing that one might say about this Bill is "Ma's maith é is mithid." We have been waiting long enough for its advent. For over 18 months I have been impressing on the Parliamentary Secretary here by questions, and on the various matters that arose, the great necessity there was for making further provision for Gaeltacht housing. This is the first provision that the Fianna Fáil Government has made for this particular service since they came into office. I should like to have heard from the Minister at this hour of the day whether the £350,000 that had been made available under 1929 and 1931 Acts has been practically entirely allocated or expended? I should like to have heard from him how much of the £350,000 was given by way of loan? Deputies will remember that the provisions of the original Act made it possible that the sum available should be expended either as a grant or as a loan.

I think I understood from the Minister's statement that the policy he found before him is the policy that he has continued. Under that policy, as far as possible, all applicants for new houses were encouraged to take as much grant as they were entitled to, and to go for as little as possible in the way of loan. I am pleased to understand that that is to be the policy in the future. There is no question about it that any burden, no matter how trifling it may appear, under which persons in the poorer areas in the Gaeltacht place themselves, makes life harder for them. I have no objection at all to the limitation which the Minister puts on the loans. Even if the loans were fixed at a lower limit I would have no objection to them. It has been found in the past that very few people indeed looked for the maximum loan. I take it that the allocation of the further £300,000 now being made available will be made on the same lines as in the past—as much as possible by way of grants and as little as possible by way of loan.

Section 3 of the Bill fixes the maximum. Sections 3 and 5 should be read together. Section 3 is in some sense a substitution for sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the original Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the original Act, as the Minister pointed out, ear-marked three-fifths of the total amount then being made available by that Act for these areas in the Gaeltacht, where the total valuation divided by the population was a guinea and less, in order to enable the Department to get at the very worst slums in the Gaeltacht. These, by the way, had never been effectively touched before.

Great as was the work that was done by the Congested Districts Board in their day, I am afraid when they came up against the difficulties that were facing them in these very bad areas they took the easier line of shelving them. It was only by the 1929 Housing Act that the Government came effectively to the aid of these persons. I was glad to hear the Minister say that the money available has been entirely utilised in those areas. I take it now since the Minister is repealing sub-section (4) of Section 11, that he feels it is no longer necessary to allocate any portion of the money beyond what will be done by the machinery in the office. As far as the new section goes I have no fault to find with it. A building grant of £90 is available where the valuation does not exceed £5. A grant of £85 is available where the valuation is over £5 and under £10, and £80 is made available where the valuation is over £10.

I take it that the grants for poultry houses and pig styes will be still available in addition to these grants of £80, £85 and £90. That is to say, that in addition to these grants for human dwelling houses, the applicants might also apply for a further grant of £5 for a hen house and £5 for a piggery. As a matter of fact it was part of the policy behind the Act at the start that we should encourage applications for this type of accommodation, because it was thought, on advice from the Department of Agriculture, that in the economic development of the Gaeltacht these were two possible ways by which the position of the people there should be improved—that is by poultry rearing and pig feeding. I have already referred to sub-section (2). I have no objection to that in defining the total amount even though making an increase in the grant to keep the maximum available for any individual at £160; that is, the maximum allowed by way of loan to any person would, I take it, be £70.

I am not easy in my mind about Section 4. While it has attractive features for anybody who has a real interest in the Irish language I have a kind of fear of it. It is the kind of section which I would recommend the Minister, as far as he can manage it, to have discussed absolutely non-politically. I may put down an amendment on the Committee Stage, not in any very pressing way, but just in order to give an opportunity for discussion. I would suggest to the Minister that, if there is a general feeling throughout the House against the provisions of Section 4, he might leave it to a free vote of the House. I think he will find many persons in his Party who will not entirely like the implications of that section, just as I am perfectly certain that in my Party I would find very many who might not agree with my point of view. I have not consulted any of my Party on this matter —not even Deputy Mulcahy, who is beside me. Quite possibly he may entirely disagree with my point of view. I have no doubt at all, for instance, that Senator Blythe would disagree entirely on the matter. I should say for the benefit of other Deputies, who may not have closely read the Bill, that this section shuts the door completely on any household in which Irish is not the ordinary language of the people. I think nobody who knows anything of my history will say that I have not in my time been a pretty strong advocate of the Irish language. What I fear about this is that you might injure the language movement very seriously by the too rigid enforcement of a section of this kind. I can visualise, for instance, those very poor areas to which I referred a minute ago, mostly Fíor-Ghaeltacht, and with very low valuations, where you might have in amongst the lot a house in just as bad a condition as all the others in which Irish may not be the ordinary language of the household.

If Connemara Deputies were here, for instance, they would know of many cases of girls going over to America, staying there for a period of nine or ten years, putting together £100 or £200, and the minute they have it they come back to the side of the mountain to settle down for their lives. They may have got out of the habit of using Irish as their ordinary language. I think it would be a mean kind of thing, if you were dealing with all their neighbours, that because of the fact that this particular household were not using Irish as their ordinary language you should entirely exclude them from the benefits of the Act. Of course, undoubtedly, if you did it, you would first of all have that household opposed to Irish for the rest of their days. It is an extraordinary thing that you find always in poor areas, not only in the Gaeltacht or in country districts, but in the city, that there is far greater esprit de corps amongst the poor than there is, for instance, amongst the middle classes or the well-to-do. Take that household I have mentioned. The neighbours will have got their houses. They will feel that there was an injustice caused to this particular household, and they, too, will begin to be rather embittered against the Irish language because of their sympathy with the persons who have been excluded on account of this particular section. That is my point of view in the matter, at any rate. It is, as I say, a matter that I should like to have discussed entirely non-politically, and in an atmosphere in which the minds would be spoken freely, and merely with a desire to Lave the Bill operating in the best manner possible. With a view to having a discussion on those lines, I intend to frame an amendment for discussion here on Committee Stage. Naturally, I am supporting the Bill in the sense that it provides this further £300,000. I was very glad indeed to note the Minister's remarks that this money will be made more easily available without too many financial restrictions. That is all the more necessary because, as the Minister must be aware, the number of sanctions that have been held up—and the holding up of sanctions means the holding up of building—must amount to some thousands during the past couple of years. Therefore, as I say, I welcome the Bill, and I welcome the removal of the financial restrictions which might hamper progress.

Mr. Bartley

I too, welcome this Bill, and I agree with the last speaker in the matter of its application to the Fíor-Ghaeltacht areas. I think that the principle of preference should be retained for the Fíor-Ghaeltacht areas, as distinct from the Breac-Ghaeltacht. There are many reasons. Connemara has been specifically mentioned. The officials of the Department know well that there are a great many applicants in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht who cannot avail themselves of the Gaeltacht Housing Scheme—either the old one or this new one—for the reason I mentioned last night on the Estimate. I am sorry that the Minister did not catch my point accurately last night when I referred to the Land Commission certificate. It is not a question of overlapping at all. The Gaeltacht Act provides that sanction cannot be given unless the Land Commission gives a certificate that the lands of the applicant will not, later on, be subject to rearrangement. I would say that the lands of the majority of the people living in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht areas are in such a condition that the Land Commission cannot give that certificate. That is a very real and serious difficulty. In my opinion, it will not be possible to spend all the money on the Fíor-Ghaeltacht areas because of the condition in which the holdings are. For that reason I should like to see the principle of preference retained. The lands in the Breac-Ghaeltacht parts will be much less subject to rearrangement than in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht areas. There is not so much congestion, in the first instance. The housing can be immediately improved there. I am very doubtful myself—about any policy of intensive house building in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht area, that is the Fíor-Ghaeltacht from Spiddal to Carna. The place is very congested. I am quite satisfied that the remedy there is to take people out of it. I do not see how anything else can be done. I think that in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht areas the principle of preference should be retained, and I hope it will be retained, in the Bill. I should like to see the further application of that principle of preference in favour of the districts in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht, in which there are summer colleges. It is important to have the houses there made as good as possible. The people can make a fair amount of money in the summer time by housing students who come to learn Irish.

I would like also to see a less rigid insistence upon the piggery and the hen house. I do not say that the clause dealing with these should be cut out altogether, but where the Department is satisfied that there is sufficient alternative accommodation for poultry and pigs, the erection of these conveniences ought not to be insisted upon. I think there is another convenience that should be brought in and that is for sanitary arrangements. Something ought to be done in that respect. There is a further matter in connection with this scheme that I do not like, and that is inviting contracts for the supply of material from traders. I think there ought to be an option whereby the people who get sanction might be enabled to buy materials from the most competitive suppliers and that they should not be tied to particular contractors, which operates under the Local Government Housing Act. I know, possibly, there may be objection to that. Suppliers may not be inclined to give credit unless the Department orders direct from headquarters, but I know that complaints have arisen as the result of that arrangement. It is not a very important point. I certainly would impress upon the Minister the point I raised last night and that he did not seem to appreciate. That is in regard to the Land Commission certificate. I know the areas the Minister is most anxious to serve and these he will find most difficult to serve. That is a point I wished to raise last night and I hope the Minister will consider it now.

General Mulcahy

The Minister will find, I think, that the housing census shows that Gaeltacht areas were the really complicated areas from the point of view of housing conditions. I think it would be most desirable, now that he is introducing a measure increasing the amount of money available, that he would give the real amount of work done in the past; that is that he would give a statistical summary of the houses built in the Gaeltacht in each county, and the total amount of money given in grants and given in loans. We have got to the point now when, I take it, the whole of the money already voted is, as one may say, spent or, certainly, allocated, and I think the House is entitled to a picture of what is being done under the previous Act.

On the question raised as to sub-section (4) I quite agree that in partly Irish-speaking districts the economic conditions are such that they might involve unfairness and difficulties in discriminating between people who are Irish-speaking and those who are not, and that there might be some case for removing that clause as far as they are limited to partly Irish-speaking areas. When you come to the Irish-speaking districts, where you have a wider area and more diversified economic conditions, a certain amount of unfairness might be involved. Considering the amount of the grants available for those deriving their living from agriculture under the 1932 Housing Act it would be unnecessary, and the restrictions might be retained with regard to the purely Irish-speaking districts. It has to be borne in mind too, that this expenditure is being specially made as one of the efforts to keep Irish as the living language in Irish homes in circumstances that it will not only live there, but extend.

The most recent statistics available with regard to the Irish language as a home language in the purely Irish-speaking districts, not to talk about the partly Irish-speaking areas, show the language is in a very grave condition, even in those limited areas regarded as purely Irish-speaking. I do not know what condition the inspectors in the administration of this Act have come up against, or that they will want to change, in regard to the purely Irish-speaking districts. The inspectors engaged in this particular work should look, in a very objective way, to the linguistic conditions of the people they are dealing with. We ought not, in any light-hearted way, to remove any conditions from this Act that would make the Irish-speaking people feel that we were not catering definitely for the Irish language in the home, or that would relieve the inspectors, either engaged in field work or at headquarters, of that important aspect of things; that is that this is definitely intended to encourage the Irish language to continue as the home language.

Donnchadh O Briain

Isé mo thuairim go mba chóir claoidhe leis na cainnteoirí Gaedhilge, maidir leis na deontaisí seo, ar an gcéad dul síos, ar a laighead. Is féidir linn a thaisbeáint san dóigh seo go bhfuil suim fé leith againn sa Ghaeltacht. Tá an Teachta Mac Pharthaláin agus an Teachta O Loingsigh i gcoinne Ailt 4. Tógadh an bheirt acu sa Ghaeltacht agus b'féidir go dtuigeann siad an scéal nos fearr ná mar a thuigim-se é. Ach mar sin féin, tá a mhalairt de bharúil agam-sa. Táim ar aon intinn leis an Teachta Ua Maolchatha i dtaobh Ailt a 4 agus molaim go láidir don Aire é a choimeád mar atá.

Mr. Connolly

Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Lynch both raised the question as to the experience we have had up to the present. The actual amount of grants which have been sanctioned and ear-marked is £238,736. The actual amount of loans is £108,460, making a total of £347,196. These figures are approximate, but I think that they almost exactly represent the position up to 31st May last. With regard to the number of houses, the total is 1,848; under £5 valuation, 1,266; between £5 and £10,396; between £10 and £15, 119; between £15 and £25, 56; over £25, 11. The improvements number 1,402—under £5, 1,056; between £5 and £10, 229; between £10 and £15, 64; between £15 and £25, 44; over £25, 9. It will be seen that the figures for the majority of both houses and improvements refer to the lower valuations—under £5.

The main question raised by Deputy Lynch dealt with Section 4. This is a matter that has given us a great deal of thought. As Deputies know, there is a good deal of difference of opinion on this issue. I think, however, that Deputy Mulcahy has practically met any argument that could be advanced on the basis on which Deputy Lynch proceeded. We feel, as the Deputy explained, that this Act is specifically planned to assist those people in the Gaeltacht because they are Irish-speaking. When the various types of grants and loans available under the local authorities are considered, which grants do not differ very much from those given to the Irish-speaking districts, no reasonable objection can be made to confining the operation of this measure to the purely Irish-speaking households. There are very definite advantages in confining it to these households. It does seek to protect those people in the Gaeltacht who are purely Irish-speaking. There is more in the protection and facilities it affords, in my opinion, than there is even in the slight difference in the amount. There is, for instance, the protection afforded them by the survey and by the guidance in the selection of the site. The most important aid, perhaps, is that to which Deputy Bartley, apparently, objects. I have gone closely into this question of the prices the contractors are willing to quote to the Department. I have contrasted those with the figures which would be charged to an ordinary retail shop or to a retail purchaser. I am definitely of opinion that it would be a terrible mistake to depart from the method at present in operation. I think that it definitely gives a substantial reduction to the man who is building his house. It does more—it ensures that the standard of quality will be maintained. I cannot see what argument can be advanced on the basis suggested by Deputy Bartley—that we should allow the people to go to any store in a district, make their selection of materials, place their order and be at the mercy of the local shopkeeper. After all, the local shopkeepers where houses are going to be built have an opportunity of sending in an estimate. Contracts are placed as near as possible to areas where the building is to be done. That is the obvious thing to do from the point of view of convenience and with a view to saving transport charges. I have examined this matter closely. I have seen the contracts and the files and, from what I have seen, no argument can be advanced for making that change. The contractors are willing to quote very keen prices when they know that there is a possibility of being put on the list for a substantial number of orders. Every local contractor is in a position to quote if he so desires.

I was glad to hear Deputy Lynch refer to the extension of the grant, and to reducing the loan to the minimum. I feel, as he does and as anybody who has had any experience of these matters must feel, that the loan is often a serious handicap to the very best type of people. The really honest people are very often afraid of the loan. It is the type of people who intend to repay and make good the loan who hesitate before they undertake the responsibility. I should like to feel that we were in a position to go even further, because the people who most need the accommodation and the grants are those who are least able to bear anything in the way of loan charges.

The Deputy referred to Section 3 and spoke of the worst slums in the Gaeltacht. I am not satisfied that the worst slums in the Gaeltacht have been wiped out. A good deal has been done but while there is a slum in the Gaeltacht we should not rest content. With regard to the poultry houses, these are not only still available, but invariably they are insisted upon except where the Department of Agriculture tells us they are not really necessary, that the people have special accommodation of their own, or that some other facilities are available or that, for some reason, the requirement should not be insisted upon. In all other circumstances, we do insist upon these poultry houses. Deputy Lynch spoke of having the discussion of Section 4 on a non-political basis. I feel that the entire Bill should be discussed on a non-political basis. If any amendment to that section is proposed, it can be considered, but I should be very slow to admit that any alteration of Section 4 should be entertained by the House. Deputy Bartley raised a question as to the preference to the Fíor-Ghaeltacht area. I think he was slightly at cross-purposes with Deputy Lynch. I do not think that he was making quite the same argument.

However, that is a matter of detail. But it raises an important point with regard to the Land Commission and the arrangements that the Land Commission might be making in an area. I cannot see what alternative we have but to be in close contact with the Land Commission in this matter. Surely Deputies will agree that no purpose is going to be served by deciding on the rebuilding of a house and the expenditure of £90 in a grant and another £30 or £40 by way of loan, if the Land Commission is coming into an area in three or four months, or one-and-a-half years afterwards and altering the whole complexion of it. They may be restriping the land. They may find that they want to relieve congestion: that where there are ten holdings now they only want five, and they may decide to take five migrants out of that area. At the moment I cannot see much point in that suggestion. I think that the closer the co-operation is between the Land Commission and the Gaeltacht housing section the better for all concerned. It will ensure that there will be uniformity of action and that there will be no overlapping. I still feel that the question of the Gaeltacht housing section, proceeding on its own, without giving any consideration at all to what the Land Commission may be doing in an area, would be slightly foolish.

On the question of sanitation I do not know that I can say much. That involves, of course, an entirely bigger issue than what we are attempting to deal with in this Bill. To me it suggests the question of drainage and proper sanitation in an area rather than in the houses themselves. That, however, can be looked into. I think these were the chief points that were raised. If there is any other matter, amendments can be put down and they will be dealt with on the Committee Stage. We will be glad to consider them. As I stated in my introductory remarks, this is really a continuation of the original Act. The slight amendments that are involved in it are merely improvements in the grants and an elimination from the 1931 Act of the financial control which we felt might, in some cases, hamper us in our work.

Mr. Lynch

I think that the Minister rather evaded the question that I asked him, whether he would allow, supposing an amendment were brought forward in connection with Section 4, a free vote of the House on it. He said he would like it discussed on a non-political basis. I will give the Minister an indication of what I have in mind. I think he misunderstood Deputy Mulcahy, or perhaps I did. What I understood Deputy Mulcahy to say was that Section 4, as it now stands in the Bill, should be retained as far as the Breac-Ghaeltacht is concerned. That is that you cut down the line completely in the Breac-Ghealtacht as against the household in which Irish is not the ordinary language, but that in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht areas, which coincide with the very poorest areas, you should retain the preference which was contained in sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Principal Act. If I put down an amendment in that direction, retaining Section 4 as it stands in the Bill for the Breac-Ghaeltacht and retaining the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Principal Act as far as the Fíor-Ghaeltacht is concerned, would the Minister be prepared to allow that to be discussed purely on its merits, and have it voted on on its merits without the Whips being on? I have not consulted anyone in my Party about this. It may be that some members on this side will not agree with me at all in the matter. I do not intend to influence them in any way in connection with it, but I would like to have this discussed entirely on its merits, because obviously the aim of all sides in the House, in a matter of this kind, is to turn out the best piece of legislation that we can for the benefit of the people and of the country.

Mr. Connolly

I was not really evading the question so much as making it clear that the whole consideration and operation of this Bill would, I naturally thought, be on a purely non-political basis. At the same time I do not think I would be prepared to commit myself to a free vote of the House on this. The Department, very definitely, after their experience, insist that this Section 4 ought to stand and for the reasons I have already given: that the Acts administered by local authorities make adequate provision so far as the people in other areas are concerned. We feel that it ought to be stressed that in the interests of the Irish-speaking areas this question of the consideration being confined to purely Irish-speaking families should be insisted on.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 4th July.

The Dáil adjourned at 6.47 until Wednesday, 4th July, at 3 p.m.