I would ask the permission of the House to take the Dublin City and County (Relief of the Poor) Bill, 1929, now. It is rather important that this Bill should be passed as quickly as possible, and notice of motion has been handed in to suspend Standing Orders so that the remaining stages can be taken to-morrow.
Dublin City and County (Relief of the Poor) Bill, 1929—Second Stage.
Cathaoirleach
I do not think it will be necessary to go into very great detail in explaining the purpose of this Bill. It will be remembered that a Committee was set up by the House to inquire into the question whether any legal disabilities existed to prevent adequate relief being given to the able-bodied poor in Dublin. The Committee met, and in the course of its deliberations had the advantage of several interviews with the Commissioner of the Dublin Union responsible. As a result of the consultations with him and of the discussions a certain report was issued and laid before the House. That report has been distributed. It urged that legislation should be passed with the object of placing the Commissioners acting for the Guardians in Dublin and the Guardians in the county poor law areas in the same position with respect to outdoor relief for the able-bodied as in the rest of the country.
It is recognised that certain changes in the law are contemplated, that is to say that, at some time or other, there will be schemes for the establishment of county committees, and so on. But there may be some delay in that procedure, and it is thought desirable that the law relating to outdoor relief for able-bodied in Dublin City and County should be made to harmonise with the law for the rest of the country. That is, in fact, the whole purpose of this small Bill. The need cannot be exaggerated. It was made clear in the discussions we have had and in the inquiry we have made that in the City of Dublin there are probably not less than— possibly considerably more than— 5,000 families dependent on able-bodied persons who ought, if due regard were paid to humanity, to be in receipt of aid, but who cannot be relieved by the normal operations of the existing Poor Law. It happens that the Act of 1923, Section 10, enabled outdoor relief to be paid to classes which previously had been excluded, in respect of any Poor Law area where a county scheme applied. As to the Dublin area—the County and the City—no county scheme has been in operation, and therefore the old Poor Law provisions still apply. The object of the Bill, which has the support of representatives of all sections of this House who were on the Committee, is to remove that restriction immediately so that what has been in the past a departure from the strict provisions of the Poor Law, and perhaps illegal or extra-legal payments made, forced by circumstances, should be legalised and that provision for the able-bodied poor should be possible within the law. I think I need not go any further in explaining the purpose of the Bill, which is fairly clear in its provisions. I move: "That the Bill be read a second time."
I have just one question to ask. I would like Senator Johnson to tell me if the people in the areas affected—that is, Balrothery and Rathdown—have been consulted to see whether they will agree to extend outdoor relief to able-bodied persons. They will be the people who will have to pay.
I think they are their own masters. This Bill will only give power to those two Unions to do this if they consider it necessary. It is a question for themselves.
I beg to second the motion. I do not think that this Bill will be opposed by any section in the House. It seeks to put into operation in the areas named a provision that was made in the Local Government Act of 1923 with regard to the giving of outdoor relief, an Act which amended the provisions that existed in, I think, the Act of 1898. The people in the city of Dublin and in the adjoining districts of the county area mentioned have been suffering great hardships since 1923. They have been denied the outdoor relief that residents in every other part of the Saorstát are entitled to, and in this small Bill we are endeavouring to give them only the benefits that were extended to the rest of the Saorstát in 1923.
There has been an appalling amount of unemployment, particularly in the city of Dublin, but also in County Dublin, during the past five or six years, and the condition of the people has been very bad indeed. I would venture to say that residents in a city like Dublin suffer more from unemployment than those in rural areas, because everybody knows that people who live in tenement houses have not the same facilities for getting firewood and other little things that people in the country have, and that unemployed people in the city suffer more hardships than those in rural areas. Able-bodied people in rural areas have been entitled to home help since 1923, but the people in the city of Dublin, and in the adjoining districts, have been denied that. We have been waiting anxiously for the introduction of legislation with regard to Greater Dublin which would deal with Poor Law conditions in Dublin, but the delay has been so great that we cannot wait any longer. Pending the introduction of legislation dealing with the important matters of Poor Law and Greater Dublin, I do not think that we can deny to the residents in the city and in the adjoining areas the benefits to which they will be entitled under this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.