I have given notice that I would raise on the adjournment the question of the relief of distress due to unemployment. That question is one which probably would be better discussed on a formal motion, but the circumstances that have been forced on the public mind rather necessitate dealing with the matter at the first opportunity. I feel that the precedent which has been made in respect to the Dublin Union may be the initiation of a new policy which may eventually apply to the whole country. I want to make certain representations with regard to this method of dealing with distress due to unemployment. The provisions of Section 13 of the Local Government Act, 1908, which empower the Minister to authorise the local authority, that is, the workhouse authority, to grant relief to any person outside the workhouse in cases of exceptional distress, have been put into operation and the Commissioners have been empowered by an Order of the Minister to that effect. I think it is understood that the section was devised for what may be called, emergency cases, cases of distress arising out of unexpected calamities, such, for instance, as floods. While I have no objection to stretching the intentions of the Act to cover any case, I want to argue that the method of dealing with distress due to unemployment by means of a special form of outdoor relief is quite inadequate and undesirable as a continuous procedure. It is being used, of course, to fill a certain gap which the failure of the Unemployment Insurance Acts has left. I think it is a most unsatisfactory substitute for dealing with a problem under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. I would ask Deputies to put themselves in the position of a workman who has endeavoured to keep himself decently and to retain his self-respect, who has been unemployed for a long time, who has been obliged to sell any reserves that he had, who has utilised all his insurance benefits, either in his own trade tontine society or unemployment insurance, and who is left in a position of distress. The position that has been taken by the Government to meet that extraordinary distress is the provision of relief by means of food tickets, orders upon grocers, received from workhouse officials. I want to argue that it is anything but a satisfactory method of dealing with this problem of poverty and distress due to unemployment. I want to say, for fear of misapprehension, that I am not criticising adversely the method of administration so far as it has yet been practised. A few days only have elapsed, and, so far as I can gather from enquiries, the method of administration has been careful and sympathetic. No harassing enquiries have been made, and fair and sympathetic methods have been adopted in the treatment of cases.
The unemployed man, however, who has grown up with a feeling of revulsion at having to seek the aid of the poor law, if he is obliged to follow this method of obtaining relief, feels that it is a distinct break with his traditions of decency and independence. Whether we can approve of it or not on logical grounds, the revulsion against poor law relief applies to many people, and it is only after they have sunk somewhat in their own estimation that they are willing to go to that stage and apply for poor law relief. Many decent people do it, but they feel that it is a break with decency, and they would rather not be forced to do it, and many people would suffer deprivation rather than seek relief in this way. I think that is common ground. It has been the argument used for many years in opposition to the whole system of poor law relief, but it is now being applied in Dublin as a substitute for an extension of unemployment insurance. As I said, I think that this is a very bad substitute, and I am urging that the distribution of assistance or relief, however small, however inadequate it may be, is better done through the machinery of the Labour Exchanges than through the machinery of the poor law unions. Even if it became necessary to require the assistance of those who had been hitherto the workhouse authorities, it would be better to have that assistance so that the work of relief should be done through the Labour Exchanges rather than by food tickets. The food ticket arrangement, as distinct from a cash provision, again is objected to, and I think with good reason. While not logical, it is sound and has its roots in the mentality of people. Men do not like to go to their grocer or other shopkeeper and advertise the fact through that shopkeeper that they have got this relief through the poor law. The method of treating this distress through unemployment by means of the poor law in this respect also is faulty and liable, I think, in the long run, to reach the wrong people. The objection is made— I do not lay special stress upon it— that in many cases the most urgent need is not food, but clothing, or perhaps to meet a demand for rent to escape eviction. Cash payments can do that; food tickets cannot do it. As I say, I do not lay special stress upon that because I think the landlord should not be the first to be paid and that the food and clothing requirements should have prior claim.
But there is another aspect of this which does not touch the individual being assisted, but does touch the question of local responsibility: I mean the responsibility of the rates for this added burden. The problem of unemployment that we are dealing with is clearly not a local problem; it is not a problem which the local ratepayer is or should be considered to be specially responsible for, and the burden, which may amount to threepence in the pound in any year under the Act, should not be borne through the rates at all, but as a charge which should be laid upon a central national fund, whatever that fund might be. I want to deal with this case, on this occasion at any rate, clearly as a matter of argument as to the wisdom of dealing with this distress due to unemployment through the Poor Law administration, and to urge upon the Minister, and Ministers, that they should proceed at the earliest possible moment to make provision for dealing with the question through insurance and the insurance system, rather than through Poor Law relief, and as early and as effectively as possible to provide work, or opportunities for work, of a constructive, remunerative character for the people who are able and willing to work. But I want specially to stress the fact that if you are going to trust the Poor Law system for dealing with this matter you will find eventually that you are hurting the morale of the men and women concerned, that very many of those who are most needing will be deterred from accepting relief through this system, and that you are re-establishing what it was once thought to be a desirable thing to abolish, the old system of Poor Law administration. I will leave it at that, with the plea that Ministers should take this question into consideration at the earliest possible date and introduce legislation, if legislation is necessary, as I presume it is, to enable benefits to be given through the insurance machinery.
