If the Minister will give me an indication that he is prepared to accept my amendment, I shall not speak on it.
Public Business. - Poor Relief (Dublin) Bill, 1929.—Report Stage.
I am not proposing to accept the amendment.
Therefore, I beg to propose:
In page 2, line 38, to insert after the word "relieve" the words "in kind and in cash."
The purpose of the amendment is that in the case of destitute people and unemployed people in need of assistance some provision should be made for paying any rent they may owe. In many cases where such people will come within whatever regulations may be made subsequent to the passing of this Bill, and will be so enabled to get assistance, it will happen that sometimes they will be tenants of houses or of rooms and, being absolutely destitute, they will be unable to pay the rent of any dwellings they occupy. The purpose of the amendment is to enable the relieving officer, or whoever will be administering the Act on behalf of the Commissioners, to pay the tenant's landlord or the tenant himself the amount that will meet the rent due.
I wonder the Minister has not already considered this point. I thought it was only necessary to draw his attention to it by way of amendment. He must realise that a great many of the people to whom relief will be given will be absolutely unable to pay their rents. If we are to relieve distress let us do it properly. There is no use in giving food tickets if those unfortunate people are in danger of being thrown out of their little dwellings. Unless some such provision as I suggest is made, not only will many of the landlords have to pay the extra rates which will go to relieve distress, but also they will have to suffer loss arising out of rents unpaid because of the necessity to which I have referred. I am afraid unless the Minister meets me in some way that I will have to press the amendment to a division.
The Deputy suggests that the point in the amendment is to enable certain things to be done. In the Bill there are full enabling powers to give relief either in cash or in kind.
It does not express it in those terms.
The Deputy puts in something which will take away from the discrimination of the persons administering this relief. Under the amendment there will be nothing to prevent persons administering relief, if they were giving 15s., giving 6d. in cash or 2d. in cash, and the rest in kind. If there is a principle involved we ought to have that principle stated.
took the Chair.
The principle involved is that you give certain local authorities power to administer relief, and you give them as wide a discretion in the matter as is desirable.
Can I take it from the Minister that if such a case arises as I have suggested, it will be attended to? If I had the Minister's assurance I will withdraw the amendment.
This particular class of relief is given throughout the country and regulations governing the giving of it are contained under the County Boards of Health Assistance Order, 1924, paragraph 6 of which says: "Where a board of health allows home assistance to any able-bodied persons, half at least of such assistance shall be given in articles of food or fuel or any other articles of absolute necessity." In the general scheme of things we have boards of assistance that give at least one-half in kind. That is the only kind of restriction in that particular way that has been put upon them. It is not proposed in any way to restrict the Dublin Union Commissioners in dealing with this particular matter—to restrict them entirely to giving relief in kind. The tendency will be, as far as possible, because of the circumstances of the City, for this relief to be given in kind. It is the intention to give it in kind. The relief is intended to be as adequate as possible, and the Commissioners will have complete discretion as to the extent to which it will be given in cash.
If the Minister says that where the necessity arises the rent will be paid by the relieving officer I am satisfied, but I want to be assured that that part is covered. If the Minister says that that is so I am quite prepared to accept it.
I do not want to introduce the question of rent. I do not want it to go abroad that the Dublin Union Commissioners are now prepared to pay the rents of all persons who want their rents paid and who are in any difficulty about rents, but there will be nothing to prevent the Union Commissioners using their discretion to give the relief in kind or in cash. They will have to consider the circumstances of the case when the demand for relief is put before them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move amendment 2:—
In page 3, line 6, at the end of Section 4 (1), to add the words "provided that the sum given by way of relief shall not be less than would be earned were such person employed on the same task of work at the rate of wages current in the district."
We had a good deal of talk on the subject to which this amendment relates on the last day that this Bill was under discussion. I do not know whether it would be necessary to go very fully into it to-day. On the last day the discussion arose as to the interpretation of Deputy Morrissey's amendment to this particular section. There were some of us who believed that the wording of Deputy Morrissey's amendment for which we voted was not sufficiently clear. With a view to satisfying our own minds in the matter as to what the interpretation of that amendment was or the idea behind it, we have put down this amendment now here. Our intention was that that should be one amendment —that is, amendments 2 and 4 should be one amendment, and that the two parts should come together. However, I do not suppose it matters very much. I now move the first part of it—that is, amendment 2. The second part of the amendment contains in principle the same idea and embodies the same principle as Deputy Morrissey's, but our amendment does, at any rate, make the matter more specific and perhaps more clear and definite than Deputy Morrissey's amendment. I beg to move it.
I hope the Minister will not accept this amendment. I would ask the House if this amendment is accepted what effect it will have upon the problem of finding work in general for the unemployed? If this amendment is accepted it will, in my opinion, render the administration of relief work almost impossible. It will create a continual source of friction between those obtaining this work and those administering the Act. It will lessen the power of control over the relief work. Now if relief work is to be carried out successfully, effective control is absolutely necessary. It will tend to make the Commissioners very careful as to what particular kind of relief work they will embark upon, and it will circumscribe the kind of relief work that will be given. It has been stated in this House that the difficulties of relief work are particularly great, and I think we ought to be very careful not to increase the difficulties of the Commissioners in this matter. On looking through the report of the speech delivered by Deputy de Valera, I find that it has been suggested that the payment of the trade union rate of wages is absolutely essential. Now I am not one who wants to do anything injurious to the trade unions in this country. I am perfectly aware of the amount of good that has arisen from the trade union movement.
Including the lawyers' trade union.
Mr. Byrne
But so far as giving relief to the unemployed of the City is concerned, we must ask the House before we pass this amendment to consider whether it will help the unfortunate unemployed or whether it will hinder the giving of relief to them. How can you draw a parallel between a member of an ordinary trade union in full capacity and in possession of full physical powers and the ordinary person who will receive unemployment relief? The average loss, I am informed, upon relief scheme work is generally computed at 40 per cent. If you embody this amendment it can only have one effect and that effect will be to increase the ratio of loss. If you increase the ratio of loss the fact is that you reduce the volume of work—you reduce the amount of work that will be given out for the relief of unemployment. Now, the smaller the loss upon relief work the more lengthy period of time can be given for the carrying out of the work.
I know of thousands of unemployed in the city who would prefer to perform work of any kind rather than receive this dole. I am conversant with the history of unemployment in the City of Dublin and can recall what happened on the occasion of the Dublin Tramway strike in 1913 when relief in kind was given out by one of the unions in the city. I knew numbers of men who would not accept that relief. I anticipate a similar consequence ensuing now if this amendment is passed. There are men in this city who prefer work to charity, and that type of man is worthy of the encouragement and consideration of this House. If you pass this amendment you are not encouraging this type of man to come forward and perform relief work. It has been universally agreed that it is preferable to find work for the unemployed rather than to give them a dole. The rank and file of the Party on this side of the House who represent Dublin constituencies are pressing the Ministers to give State aid towards the relief of unemployment in Dublin, so that the volume of relief work could be increased here in the city.
Is Dublin the only place to which State aid for the relief of unemployment should be given?
Mr. Byrne
I am dealing now with Dublin. Of course, it is my duty as a Dublin Deputy to look after the people of Dublin. Now when we impressed upon the Minister the necessity for a State contribution towards relief in Dublin, the first objection we had was that we would have all those stipulations about trade union rates of wages and a thousand and one restrictions of that kind, and a lot of such things, so that the carrying out of this would be impossible.
Now we know where we are.
Mr. Byrne
If this amendment were going to do any good to the unemployed or to the trade unions in the City of Dublin I would be prepared to support it, and I may say I know as much about unemployment in Dublin and about trade union movements as any man who is not an active trade unionist. Now everybody knows that where a member of a trade union is given employment he must be at a hundred per cent. standard of efficiency or his employer will not keep him. What would be the capacity of those persons who will receive work under these relief schemes? That capacity varies in output from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent., and this fact is recognised by the Commissioners carrying out relief works. They generally issue orders that for the first few weeks this unfortunate type of citizen is not to be rushed in the work. He is to be given an opportunity and when that stage is passed he may be expected to give a larger volume of work than at first. I think that is a reasonable and a very charitable way in which to look upon the administration of relief schemes. The problem before this House is to find work for the type of man who is not physically fit.
Does that apply to all the unemployed?
The Deputy shall be allowed to make his own speech.
Mr. Byrne
They do not like to be told these truths.
Deputy Byrne is making our case but he does not work himself that way.
Mr. Byrne
The problem is to find work for a particular type of man between whom and the ordinary trade union worker no parallel can be drawn. The ordinary man out for work is physically strong and fit and a hefty individual. When the unfortunate 30 per cent. man comes along what happens to him? He is generally left aside. Some of the unemployed are only able to give 30 per cent. output. What I want to ask the Labour Party and the mover of the amendment is: is it the intention that that particular type of man should be cast aside and receive no work? If this amendment is passed, that will be the result of it— the unfortunate physically unfit will be rejected and the stronger type of individual will get preference for the work. I am speaking of what occurred in practice and not what we have in this amendment.
I would remind the House that the greatly-abused old Dublin Corporation had a particular system of dealing with this particular type of problem. I am sure the mover of the amendment knows that the Corporation at one time had what they called a Distress Committee which paid a wage according to the type of individual with whom they had to deal. They did not pay, and could not pay, nor could it be reasonably expected that they should pay, what the amendment calls for—a trade union rate of wage. If the amendment, as now framed, is adopted, the fear that I have is that the physically unfit will be injured. I fear that the volume of work given under relief schemes will be diminished and that the type of person whom we are anxious to help under this Bill will be hurt to such a degree that in fact the net effect of the relief scheme work may be negligible.
What we who represent the city of Dublin want is as large a volume of this work to be distributed as possible. I suggest to Deputy O'Kelly that if he considers the amendment and takes into consideration the experience he has had on the Distress Committee of the old Corporation he will be bound to come to the conclusion that this amendment is quite impossible and that it will do a great deal more harm and will certainly do no good.
I am supporting the amendment. In view of certain statements made, and possibly certain impressions created, it is well at this juncture that the attitude of the Labour Party in relation to this whole question of relief should be made clear.
Only in so far as it concerns this amendment.
Yes. It would appear from some statements made, notably by Deputy Byrne, that the only thing the Labour Party wanted to get was relief for the persons contemplated under this Bill. That is not the attitude of the Labour Party. The sooner Deputy Byrne and those who think with him get rid of that idea the better it will be for the Deputy and the people he represents. I want to make it perfectly clear that so far as the Labour Party are concerned, what they ask for is work and not relief. We believe that this work should be undertaken, not in piecemeal fashion, but on a large scale—in a national way if you like.
Mr. Byrne
Where is the money to come from?
The money can be found for other purposes, and it can be easily found for this.
Mr. Byrne
The money of the ratepayers of Dublin.
We are not asking the ratepayers of Dublin, or the small shopkeepers represented by Deputy Byrne either, to do it. A lot of extraneous matter has been introduced by Deputy Byrne. I am trying to keep as close as I can to the terms of the amendment. We have the small-minded business man represented in this House, the man who cannot see beyond the four walls of Dublin. I ask people who think in the terms of Deputy Byrne's mentality to throw their eyes a little bit beyond the shores of this country and see how an attempt is being made to solve the unemployment question in other countries. One would think that this problem is confined to Dublin.
Mr. Byrne
Is this Bill confined to Dublin?
One can say many things proper to the Bill without even considering Dublin. The amendment seeks to provide that when engaging labour for the works contemplated in the Bill, the persons employed shall be engaged at the usual rates of pay. In other words, it does not mean that a man is to be kept for six days per week. The work will go round by giving a person three days per week at the recognised rate. Deputy Byrne spoke of the man who is not physically fit, and in the next breath he spoke of the fifty per cent. man who, in the course of a few days, becomes a hundred per cent. man.
Mr. Byrne
I never made any such statement.
Not in these terms, but that is what was inferred. The Deputy said that a ganger who employs a number of men will pick out a number of very physically fit men. Surely in measures of this kind somebody other than a person physically fit is contemplated. There are thousands in Dublin at present who, owing to unemployment and lack of feeding, etc., are not physically fit. Does Deputy Byrne suggest that, because these unfortunate men have been reduced to that state of not being physically fit, their labour should be exploited for this purpose? That is the position taken up by Deputy Byrne.
Mr. Byrne
Not at all.
He is only camouflaging the whole issue by suggesting that this is a question of trade union conditions. It is the merest camouflage. All that is asked for in the amendment is that these men be paid a decent rate of wages, and not be asked to come along, as suggested by Deputy Byrne in a veiled manner, and work under certain "Coolie" conditions. That is what was running through the mind of Deputy Byrne when he made this suggestion. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment.
I am not accepting the amendment. In the first place, while Deputy Anthony appears to support it, and suggests that the amendment makes it clear that people who work at this particular sort of work will have to be paid the usual rate of wages current for the work in the district, the amendment does not secure that at all. The amendment secures nothing. If you take the amendment and work it out on a time basis, then it secures what Deputy Anthony speaks about, and what Deputy de Valera spoke about the other day. But if you take the amendment and interpret it on a work basis, then it means a very different thing. However, the position, as explained by me on the Committee Stage, is that the types of persons employed on this particular class of work are known by experience to be only fifty or sixty per cent. efficient, as compared with the ordinary type of labourer recruited by a ganger, and I cannot restrict the Commissioners or the local authorities carrying out the Bill, to the extent that they cannot go ahead with any relief schemes except they pay the persons seeking relief the normal wages in the district for the work. To do that would bring about the situation that there would be no relief works undertaken. I have explained that for the last twelve months or more there have been sixty-five men engaged originally at 30/- a week and subsequently at 35/- a week, who would not be engaged at all if they had to be paid at the rate of wages that certain labour party representatives in the city wanted to dictate prior to the Christmas of 1928. They would not, and they could not, have been employed without unnecessary waste of public money. That work carried out since the beginning of this year would not have been got through.
All sections of the House have agreed that if it was possible to provide on the fringes of the out-door relief provided by means of this particular Bill for work, either for testing the bona fides of the applicants for relief or for the sake of keeping men occupied and keeping up their morale, and keeping them ready for absorption in normal employment when it comes about, that work ought to be found. One of my objects in refusing this amendment, which in reality means nothing, and which can be interpreted in any way at all by anyone operating the Bill, is that to put in an amendment such as this would restrict the possibility of the Commissioners being able to organise any class of work. I think that would be more than undesirable. Deputies have the actual practical sample of work in front of them which the Commissioners themselves will do, if they can, and of the type of wages they will pay if they can, and they can express themselves as satisfied or dissatisfied. If they are dissatisfied then they can vote for this amendment if they think it means nothing. But if they are satisfied in any way that the men that are employed are much better off in that way, than if they were drawing relief, then they will leave the sub-section stand as it is.
Having heard the speech of Deputy Byrne and the speech of the Minister for Local Government, I have come to the conclusion that Deputy Byrne never knew, and that the Minister has forgotten the purpose of this Bill. It is not a Bill to provide work or relief work even. It is a Bill empowering the local authorities in Dublin to give outdoor relief to the able-bodied destitute poor. I cannot see how the Minister's argument is relevant to the amendment at all. The Bill provides, and all parties are agreed, that persons receiving out-door relief under this Bill should be asked to perform some task of work as a test of their genuineness. The idea behind that particular provision of the Bill is that a work test would prevent persons getting outdoor relief who were not genuinely destitute unemployed poor.
When that matter came to be considered in the House certain Deputies, including Deputies on these benches, thought that the powers given to boards of guardians under the Bill might be used in a manner very detrimental to the public interest. It has been pointed out here before that the administration of the powers given by this Bill will not lie with the Minister or this House. It may not lie during the full period in which the Bill is in operation with anybody now existing. We cannot say in whose hands the administration of the powers given by the Bill will be. It is quite possible that some authority will come into existence that will use the powers of the Bill for the purpose of depressing the general wage rates in this city or getting specific tasks done at a smaller cost than would be involved if ordinary labour had to be employed for the performance of these tasks. The amendment, therefore, that Deputy Kelly suggests seeks to provide that the actual fulfilment of the work required from a person in receipt of relief shall bear some relation to the value of the relief given, as a full week's work would bear to the full week's pay current for that work, and that, also, the work on which the person is engaged shall be additional work undertaken for the purpose of providing employment in the area of the board of guardians concerned, and such as will not deprive of their employment persons employed in a work of similar character. I cannot understand how anybody could object to the insertion of safeguards of that kind in the Bill. Surely it would be most undesirable that the labours of the destitute poor should be used for the purpose of depressing the ordinary wage rates. It will be agreed that it would be equally undesirable that the labour of such persons should be used in such a manner as would deprive other people of the full time employment which they either have at present or could reasonably expect under certain projected schemes. The Minister himself has an amendment on the paper to provide as Deputy Kelly's amendment provides that work shall be of a character undertaken for providing additional employment. That is a step forward from the position taken up by the Minister when the Bill was originally introduced. It does meet one of the possible dangers we foresaw, but it does not meet them all. I do not see how the effectiveness of the relief that can be given under it will be impaired in any way if the other safeguard suggested by Deputy O'Kelly was inserted.
Amendment No. 2 might be altered if the Minister's objection to it is a valid one. The amendment does think of the amount of relief given in relation to the work done. The Minister seems to think that it should deal with the amount of relief given to the time spent upon the work. That is only a minor point. It was merely the difficulty of getting words that would convey our idea that prevented us putting in the question at the time. The amendment therefore does definitely provide against relief labour being used in order to depress general wage rates. Persons who may be employed upon these particular tasks or works may be as the Minister said only 50 or 60 per cent. as efficient as ordinary labourers.
If that is the case, there is an argument for leaving the amendment as worded by Deputy O'Kelly and not as the Minister suggested. The Minister also said that the passing of the amendment would restrict the Commissioners so much that they could not go ahead with relief schemes. There is nothing in the Bill, nor in any amendment, to prevent the Commissioners going ahead with such schemes. The Bill deals with the giving of outdoor relief to the destitute poor, and the schemes altogether distinct from the Bill for the relief of unemployment in Dublin County or in any county can be proceeded with without relation to this Bill. No one wishes to restrict the Commissioners or the City Council who, we hope, will shortly replace them, from proceeding with a scheme to relieve unemployment. I cannot see what that has to do with this Bill which deals with the giving of outdoor relief to the destitute poor, subject to their performing a work test. It may be that the Minister is correct in saying that persons employed in certain relief schemes in Dublin at 30/- a week could not have been employed if the suggestion put forward by the Labour Party had been listened to. But is it intended that the value of outdoor relief which will be given to able-bodied destitute poor in Dublin will amount to 30/- a week? I hope that it will but I doubt it very much. I also doubt very much if it is the intention of the Commissioners, or board of guardians who will be administering the Act to give relief to that extent.
I cannot see, therefore, in what way the Minister's argument is pertinent to the case. The City Commissioners will be quite at liberty, are at liberty and will always be at liberty, to undertake relief schemes to relieve unemployment. This Bill is intended to give them the same powers hitherto enjoyed by other local bodies with respect to relieving the able-bodied destitute poor, subject to their performing a work test. The only thing we wish to provide is that the provisions relating to the work test will not operate to deprive other persons of their employment, to prevent persons getting employment, or to depress existing rates of wages, and in my opinion no case has been made by anyone who has spoken against the amendment.
On the Committee Stage of the Bill certain members of the Fianna Fáil Party said they would vote for the amendment which I had put down in order to clarify it on the Report Stage. I do not know whether they have clarified it or not.
They have improved it.
Or improved it in any way. My own opinion is that they have not. I am more convinced that my amendment was the amendment that should have been accepted by the House.
Every mother believes in her own child.
Whatever about that, Deputy O'Kelly's amendment being the next best thing, certainly I will have much pleasure in voting for it. Deputy Lemass touched on the real point when he stated that this is not a Bill for relief work. The trouble from the beginning of the debate on the Bill has been that the Minister has forgotten what the Bill is about, and so has Deputy J. J. Byrne. It is quite clear that what the Minister wants to use the Bill for is to get work performed at a rate of wages much lower than the rate at which the work would be performed if the Bill were not introduced. That seems to be what is at the back of the Minister's mind. This Bill is to be used, not for the relief of the destitute poor, but in order to get work in Dublin completed at a rate of wages much lower than the rate which would have been paid if the Bill were not passed through the House.
The Minister in his speech on the amendment and in many of his speeches on the Committee Stage of the Bill, talked about the 65 men who are employed at 30/- a week. He asked what we had to say about 30/- or 35/- a week. There is nothing in the Bill about 30/- or 35/-. There is nothing in the Bill to compel those who will have to administer it to pay 15/- a week, and the Minister knows that better than any Deputy in the House. We have no guarantee if the Bill is passed that those who will be employed on relief work will get even 30/- a week, and the Minister does not know whether they will or not. The Minister also stated that those men were getting 30/- a week because they were not able to give the output which men who are physically fit would give, and that after a certain threat had been made the output was increased and wages were also increased from 30/- to 35/- a week. The Minister assumed that it was because of the threat the output was increased. Is it not quite possible that it was because of the fact that the men who were getting even 30/- a week could get nourishment somewhat better than that they could get whilst idle?
I have no doubt in my mind that if those men were in the condition which the Minister stated, after a few weeks receiving 35/-, the output would be greater than when they were receiving 30/- a week. The Minister put forward in this Bill, and in reply to the amendment, a principle to which I think this House should not agree, the survival of the fittest, that only those who are 100 per cent. fit are to be employed and that those who are not 100 per cent. physically fit shall not be employed until the people who are perfectly fit shall be all absorbed. What would be the position in the country if every empolyer were to act on that principle?
Would the Deputy say where that principle is laid down by the Minister?
It is laid down by the Minister in his speeches.
The speeches have been printed at the public expense, and perhaps the Deputy will say where it is laid down in the published reports.
If the Minister will read the speech which he made in November, 1928, I think he will find it, but we need not go back. We heard that these men are going to be employed at a lesser rate of wages, according to the Minister, because they are not able to give the output given by a man who is physically fit. The House has not grasped what that means.
Mr. Byrne
The Deputy has not grasped the facts.
I am afraid the Deputy's grasping powers are not 100 per cent., except in one particular direction.
Mr. Byrne
They are greater than yours.
I would like to ask the Minister who is to decide whether a man is physically fit or not. Have the Commissioners to call in a medical officer of health, and is each applicant to be examined by the medical officer of health as to whether he is 60, 80, or 100 per cent. fit; and, if so, if the wages are to be determined by the physical fitness of the man to be employed?
There is just another point I would like to make in connection with this Bill. It is said that under this Bill about 5,000 persons will qualify for relief. That means that to only a very small percentage of those who will qualify under the Bill can the work test be applied. Then the question arises, whether it is to be a work test, to see whether the men are genuinely employed on certain work, or whether it is to be used as an instrument to force down wages and worsen conditions. As far as we are concerned, I may say that our only anxiety in connection with the measure is to see that it is not going to be used unfairly as a weapon to force down wages and conditions, that it will not be used to put out of employment men who are at the moment in employment, working under fair conditions and at a fair wage, in order to have them supplanted by men who will be working under this Bill at wages which could not be called fair, and under conditions such as would not satisfy us as being fair. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, I think that Deputy O'Kelly's amendment would secure that.
The Minister did not give us any reasons or did not explain why he could not accept the amendment. He did not explain what was wrong with it. He said that he would not accept it, and that it would not achieve what it purported to achieve, but he did not say why. With Deputy Lemass I would like to remind the Minister that this is a Bill to relieve the destitute of Dublin, and not a Bill to relieve unemployment. As a matter of fact, the work test is not the main principle of the Bill. but is only a secondary concern, and it should be used only to ensure that those who are unemployed and receive outdoor relief are genuine cases.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 73.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Doyle, Edward.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipperary).
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- 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.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- 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.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Allen and G. Boland; Níl, Deputies Duggan and P. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment 3:—
"In page 3, line 11, after the word `utility' to insert the words `undertaken for the purpose of providing additional employment.' "
I said on the Committee Stage that I would put in this amendment. Deputy Lemass on the Committee Stage suggested that it might go into sub-section (1) of Section 4 rather than where I am putting it. As I say, this class of relief is given in other parts of the country except Dublin city and Dublin county, and the rules and regulations governing the matter are issued in the County Board of Health Assistance Order, 1924. In Section 6 of this Order, on page 3, the provision is contained that "the Board of Health may at their discretion require such person as a condition of the granting of such assistance to perform such suitable task or work as the Board may determine so long as such person shall continue to receive home assistance." The nature of such a task is usually some work associated with the outdoor maintenance of the ground around the institutions of the Board, and in the first place I feel it is undesirable to remove from the Commissioners of the Union any work of that particular class, and prevent them utilising that work as a kind of test work for persons in Dublin that will get this particular outdoor relief. It may restrict them if we put in in sub-section (1) a provision that such work should be undertaken for the purpose of providing additional employment. No doubt it would be actually providing additional employment, but I see no reason for differentiating in the terms between work that might be performed of that nature in the Dublin Union or any of the other Dublin Institutions and work that is performed round any county home or county hospital in the country, and that is done within the terms of Section 6 of the instructions I' have referred to. For that reason, I am putting in the amendment into sub-section (2) (a), as already suggested. If we read the amendment that is down in Deputy O'Kelly's name, it perhaps can be discussed with my amendment because they deal with the one matter.
What I was proposing about that was: the Minister's amendment covers the first half of Deputy O'Kelly's amendment down to the word "employment," and if it is carried, it will not be possible to move Deputy O'Kelly's amendment in the form in which it appears on the Paper. What the Chair suggests is that Deputy O'Kelly would move the second part of his amendment to the Minister's amendment, that is to say, that when the Minister has moved his amendment, the Deputy will move to add the words "in the area of the board of guardians granting the relief and such as will not deprive of their employment persons employed in work of a similar character." That will obtain a decision on such part of Deputy O'Kelly's amendment as is not now covered by the Minister, and will enable a discussion to take place on both.
I would oppose Deputy O'Kelly's amendment on really two points. The first is "in the area of the board of guardians," because that might unnecessarily restrict the Dublin Union Commissioners who perhaps might be able to enter into a contract outside their area for the utilisation of the unemployed in the city. For instance, it never materialised, and I do not know whether it ever will materialise, but the Dublin Union Commissioners at one time considered the possibility of giving some of the unemployed in the city, who were seeking relief, work by arranging that they could do some work on what is called the Merrion estate, which might be outside their area. There did appear a possibility that some road-making might be undertaken on the Merrion estate and discussions took place with the person controlling the Merrion estate with the object of doing work that would be of advantage to the development of that particular site for housing and would be also of advantage to the unemployed in the city in the matter of giving them employment. Nothing developed from that, and I cannot see at present that there is any great prospect of anything developing. To put in "the area of the board of guardians" might hamper the local bodies that would be seeking to organise work of this particular kind. The difficulty of organising any amount of work is so great that I would not put any restriction that might in any way prevent any work being done that might otherwise be done. For that reason, I oppose the restriction in the area of the board of guardians. With regard to the other part of his amendment that says "and such as will not deprive of their employment persons employed in work of a similar character," I think that is sufficently safeguarded by the wording of my amendment, which is undertaken for the purpose of providing additional employment.
Words, as I pointed out before, are not going to safeguard anything in this particular matter, particularly words of that particular kind which may be interpreted in that particular way. If we stipulate that any work undertaken under sub-section (2) of Section 4 shall be work of public utility undertaken for the purpose of providing additional employment, I think, in so far as words in legislation can safeguard anything, the fears of the Deputy will be fully safeguarded against, while, as I repeatedly said before, these words will not do anything material to help the provision of work, which is really the thing we are desirous of doing.
In accordance with your ruling, I move the part of the amendment in my name that might be said to follow on the Minister's amendment. That is at the end of the proposed amendment to add the words "in the area of the board of guardians granting the relief and such as will not deprive of their employment persons employed in work of a similar character." As I said earlier, my intention was to have all this in one amendment. The second part seems to be only a corollary to number 2 amendment. Although there may be a question of redundancy of idea in the phraseology of the last phrase of amendment 4, if we consider it in connection with the earlier phrase, "work undertaken for the provision of additional employment," I think it is a necessary safeguard in case there might be any likelihood of the relief work being used even accidentally to disemploy people who are already employed. In some cases, I think it is likely to arise that there will be a temptation to use people who might be got at a cheaper rate on certain work to the disadvantage of people who have to be paid ordinary wages.
I do not think any more need be said on the matter. A good deal that was said on number 2 amendment applies to the amendment now under discussion. If the Minister were prepared to accept the second part of the amendment, leaving out "in the area of the board of guardians," I would be prepared to meet him. Perhaps there is something in what he said in regard to the undesirability of restricting the area. I would be prepared in that case to accept the last phrase: "such work as will not deprive of their employment persons employed in work of a similar character." If the Minister would accept that we may not have a vote on the matter. Otherwise we must have a vote.
Perhaps I may give an example to the Minister of the danger which the amendment would provide against. It would clarify matters. The Minister mentioned the question of the Merrion estate and the possibility of relief labour being employed on the building of roads in the development of that estate. Supposing the persons in charge of that estate had already a small number of men employed building roads and they were not proceeding very rapidly with the work, notwithstanding the whole-time employment of a number of individuals, and that then this Bill was passed and they realised the possibility of contracting with the Union Commissioners for the performance of the work by them with relief labour, the actual carrying out of that contract would deprive of their employment men whom the authorities in charge of the Merrion estate have at the moment building the roads. I am only taking that as an example. There is a possibility there that men may lose their employment, even accidentally, as Deputy O'Kelly said, in consequence of the use of relief labour. The amendment is to provide against that danger. I cannot see how the actual addition of these words to the Minister's own amendment could restrict the Commissioners in any way or prevent them using relief labour to the fullest extent possible. They do, however, definitely provide against the possibility of a danger which, I am sure, the Commissioners and the Minister are anxious to avoid.
If we change slightly the example given by the Deputy we may see the danger of it. Assuming there were even one or two persons employed in the area and that their position would affect a hundred or a hundred and fifty men, who would be deprived of employment——
That is not what is in the amendment—"employed in work of a similar character."
Assume there are two or three people there. It might mean a vigorous opposition being put up to a relief scheme, and the Commissioners being put in the position that if they deprive any persons of employment they are creating a relief problem for themselves. So I say it is sufficiently implied there what the idea is of providing additional employment. If it did mean disemploying one or two persons, and I do not see how it could, in order to start a big relief scheme for one hundred or one hundred and fifty men those charged with the responsibility for considering the relief position in the city may easily have to take the decision that would provide for the employment in a different way of persons that might be disemployed, I do not contemplate any disemployment, but I do not want to tie up the persons that are operating this by any kind of fictitious claims of unemployment being created as a result of their action.
May I take it that the amendment is to be altered in so far as the phrase about the area of the board of guardians is concerned? I think there is a very strong case for altering the amendment in that respect. We were told here some months ago that there was an InterDepartmental Committee to sit on the question of coastal erosion. There may be already, for all I know, a report available on that subject. In any case, presumably, there will be a report in time. If the report were to recommend that certain work was to be taken in hand at once, was urgent, or was at all events desirable, it could easily be that work of that kind could be undertaken by a board of guardians and, of course, it would be additional work for the purpose of providing employment. It would be a pity, therefore, if any amendment passed now were to restrict the board of guardians from allowing men to share in work of that kind.
Question put: "To add at the end of the proposed amendment the words ` in the area of the board of guardians granting the relief and such as will not deprive of their employment persons employed in work of a similar character.' "
The Dáil divided. Tá, 60; Níl, 73.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthey.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipperary).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Séan.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- 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.
- 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.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- 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.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Question declared lost.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
I beg to move amendment 5:—
In page 3, line 17, to insert before Section 5 the following new section:—
"Where relief under this Act is granted by a board of guardians to any person, and such person is not required as a condition of the granting of such relief to perform a task of work under the foregoing section the board may, if they shall so think fit, declare such relief or the cost thereof to be given by way of loan and any such relief or the cost thereof so declared to be given by way of loan shall be recoverable as a debt due to the board from the person to whom such relief shall have been granted or considered as granted under the Poor Relief (Ireland) Acts, 1838 to 1914, as amended by this Act."
This is to meet the wishes of the House as expressed on a particular amendment that was before them in Committee. It makes it permissive on the board of guardians to arrange, where they think the case warrants it, that the amount of relief given may be given by way of loan.
I am opposed to this amendment. The powers set out under it are powers that should not be given in this Bill. I appreciate the point that the Minister is making, that there are certain numbers of people who are not anxious to be a charge on public funds if they have an opportunity afterwards of discharging their liabilities; but under the law at the moment there is nothing to prevent a person of the type referred to in this amendment repaying to the guardians or the Commissioners any money received in the way of home assistance.
Now at least an amendment of this kind should contain a safeguard covering the concurrence of the person in receipt of relief in this arrangement. I certainly think it very undesirable that the wide powers that are to be conferred on the Commissioners or the local authorities in respect of this section should be conferred on them. Even with the safeguards that I have mentioned I think there would still be danger. Because if the Commissioners or the guardians have to ask people applying for relief if in the event of its being granted they are prepared to repay it, I hold that people in such circumstances would be prepared to make that promise though there would be no hope of making good that promise. There is nothing whatever to prevent a certain type of people that the Minister has in mind making repayment of the home assistance received in this respect. I am satisfied from the mentality of the Commissioners that we have seen up and down the country that it would be very dangerous to give power of that kind into their hands. I oppose the amendment and I hope the House will reject it.
The case which the Minister made for an amendment of this kind during the discussion on the Committee Stage seems to be convincing at first sight. Nevertheless we think that the passing of the amendment in the form in which it now appears is leaving the way open to possible dangers which the Minister may not foresee. I am referring to the danger that there might be discrimination between the applicant who is prepared to consent to the relief being regarded as a loan and the applicant who is not so prepared. I want the relief to be given without any question of its being repaid at all. If the Minister thinks that there are cases of people who because of their feelings of pride or for any other reason, would object to taking outdoor relief except as a loan, it should be, I think, possible to get an amendment that would meet such cases. Such an amendment, involved that the amount given could not be regarded as a loan unless the recipients agreed to its being so regarded. It seems to me, if the amendment passes in its present form, that there will be a temptation, at any rate to those administering the Act, to ask persons applying for relief to agree to the amounts given being regarded as a loan.
As Deputy Murphy has pointed out, persons applying for relief will be ignorant of their rights and will agree in any case knowing that the loan can never be recovered from them or that they never will be likely to be in a position to repay it. Some hardship might result in the future if a board of guardians or the Commissioners administering this Act were to take action against individuals to recover the amount given to these individuals. There is also the point of view that I have given expression to—that there might be discrimination between those applying for relief—that the amendment, at any rate, opens a way to discrimination between those willing to regard the money given as a loan and those who want it as a grant. I do not think that the situation which the Minister has tried to provide for in this amendment is sufficiently serious to justify the amendment at all. I think that those persons who want outdoor relief, but who want it as a loan, can be persuaded to take it as a grant if they can possibly get it.
I think this is a very impracticable amendment. Does the Minister think that the ordinary labouring man with 30/- to 35/- a week is going to pay back out of that small sum when he gets employment the sum of 15/- that he got the previous week? That is what it amounts to. The only other eventuality is that he becomes a millionaire. That is very unlikely. Deputy Lemass spoke about the impracticability of proceeding against those people. You will have a whole crop of very unnecessary legal expenses for bringing those labourers to court to recover the 15/- which, I think, is the maximum you can give them. I see no cause for this amendment, and I do not understand the mentality behind it. If outdoor relief is given, it is spent. Well and good if the man can get wages the following week, or month, or year. He wants every penny of that, and more, to sustain himself and his family without giving the 15/- back to the guardians.
Deputies will remember that I put in a section in which this particular class of relief was to be given as a loan to apply generally. This amendment provides that it may, at the discretion of the guardians, be regarded and treated as a loan and be recoverable. The principle of putting it within the discretion of the guardians to mark any relief given by them as a loan, and putting them in the position of being able to recover the money paid out as relief in the ordinary way, is enshrined and is intrinsic to the Poor Law Relief Act as long as poor relief has existed.
That is no argument.
It is no argument, if you like, but it is a fact. Another fact is, that it has more or less passed out of use. I propose to put it in this particular Bill, distinguishing or bringing forward the possibility and the power of regarding the matter as relief where the guardians so consider it, so that it may be brought to the notice of those people in the first place who hesitate to associate themselves in any way with seeking relief that they can have relief by way of loan; in the second place, to give the guardians power, where they suspect undisclosed means on the part of an applicant for relief, to give that relief, but that they shall be able to recover it as a debt in cases where the suspicion happens subsequently to be confirmed. There is no question of being parsimonious in the matter of marking down this particular class of relief as a loan. The House has decided against that general principle. There is the idea to make it easy for the class of person I have referred to and to give the guardians full discretion in the matter. Just as they have full discretion as to the assigning of relief as a loan, they have also full discretion in pursuing any case that they think should be pursued, or leaving it unpursued. The persons who are going to administer this Act are persons dealing with the relief of the poor, who deal with their work in a suitable spirit, so that I do not think the danger that the Deputy suggests will lie in this amendment.
I suggest that the question as to whether the amount given should be regarded as a loan should not be in the discretion of the guardians, but should be in the discretion of the person receiving the relief. That is all that is intended to be provided, although I took it from one sentence of the Minister that the board of guardians propose to exercise power under this section in almost every case in view of the possibility only of the persons applying being millionairs and having a golden stocking at home.
Mr. Boland
As the law stands at present, if people have undisclosed means cannot they be proceeded against in the ordinary way? If that is the kind of case that the Minister laid stress upon, the ordinary law could deal with it.
Does the Minister think that the amount of undisclosed means is so great that it would be worth while proceeding with this amendment? As to his other points about people hesitating with regard to outdoor relief, I assure him that that day is gone altogether. They are not a bit shy.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 59.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- 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.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- 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.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Cassidy.
Amendment declared carried.
New section ordered to be inserted.
SECTION 6.
(1) This Act may be cited as the Poor Relief (Dublin) Act, 1929.
(2) This Act shall come into operation on a day to be prescribed by the Minister not being later than fourteen days from the passing of this Act.
(3) This Act shall continue in operation until the 31st day of March, 1931, and no longer.
I beg to move:
In page 3, line 57, to delete the figures "1931" and substitute the figures "1932."
The 1923 Bill extending the powers to give this particular class of relief as well as other matters contained in the Bill is only a temporary measure. This Bill brings Dublin and Dublin County into the same line as other counties in the matter of outdoor relief. It is a temporary measure to the extent that the 1923 Bill was a temporary measure. When the year 1931 was put into this Bill here I had the hope that the consolidating measure replacing the Temporary Provisions Act, 1923, would have been passed into law before the end of the coming year. Now because I have a doubt in my own mind as to getting as far as that with the consolidating measure necessary, I am suggesting here that the year 1932 should be inserted instead of the year 1931.
The only redeeming feature about this Bill was that it was only to last for a period of eighteen months. That was stressed by the Minister on a number of occasions. Now we find that the Bill is to last for a further year. We were chastised in the first instance with whips and now, as ratepayers, we are going to be chastised with scorpions. I would urge on the Minister, in view of the serious situation which will be created in the city and suburbs by the passing of the Bill and the curtailment of employment that will ensue, that he should not at this stage, at all events, extend that serious situation one moment longer than necessary. If it should unfortunately happen that at the end of eighteen months it is found necessary to extend the period we could then consider the matter; but, as the Bill stands, I say that it is in the interests of the House, of the city, and of the country that it should only have jurisdiction for the shortest possible period. I would urge on the Minister to go into the matter further, withdraw the amendment at this stage, and let it be considered later if it is absolutely necessary.
I am in substantial agreement with what Deputy Good has stated and I hope that the Minister will give it his careful consideration. The Bill at present has some merits and is, perhaps, the best that can be done for its immediate purpose, but the sooner it ceases to operate in its present form the better. There is no reason, as Deputy Good suggested, why, if there is cause for its extension, it should not be done at a later period. I hope that the Minister will take the matter into consideration and agree to adopt this suggestion. There are many ratepayers, on whom the provisions of the Bill will fall, who are almost as poor as the people for whom relief is intended and who cannot see how they are going to meet this increased taxation.
I desire to support Deputy Dr. Hennessy and Deputy Good. The one thing is that around the Bill there is a mass of conjecture. There is not, and I do not think that there can be, any certainty in estimating the cost of working the Bill. The only thing that tells us what the cost will be and how the rates to be levied will fall on the area of charge is a year or eighteen months' experience of its working. The principle of the Bill has been adopted and I do not think that Labour Deputies need fear that once the principle has been adopted it will be abandoned. It may be desirable to review the operations of the Bill in a comparatively short time after its passing, and I suggest that the period of eighteen months fixed in the Bill is a reasonable interval. I hope that the Minister will not press the amendment, but give us eighteen months to see how the Bill is working and how the area of charge is supporting the burden which is being pressed upon it. Within eighteen months we shall probably have the Greater Dublin Bill and we shall be in a better position to review the whole problem of destitution in the city and townships and, when we have that information, it will not take very long, if a case is made for it, to pass a further Bill if necessary, but let us not extend the period of this Bill until we have proof that it is necessary.
Mr. Byrne
I also join in appealing to the Minister not to extend the period of the Bill. The Bill was accepted by the citizens in the hope that it was purely a temporary measure. It was first to end in 1931, but now the period is proposed to be extended to 1932. Deputies representing the City of Dublin were actuated in their strong opposition to the Bill by the belief that once the principle of the Bill was introduced it had come to stay. We do not object to the principle of relieving the destitute poor, but to the principle of relieving them under circumstances arising under this Bill. We have our duty to the destitute poor of the city, but I am afraid that our interests are not sufficiently protected under this Bill to make us believe that we are going to do our duty in that respect and in that respect only. I believe that this Bill, like Sinbad the Sailor and the Old Man of the Sea, will be very difficult to shake off the necks of the ratepayers of Dublin. I would like to put one important point to the Minister. Will the unemployed receive benefits in the coming Christmas? As the measure stands, it has got to go to the Seanad. Will the Seanad have adjourned by the time it reaches that Chamber, and, when it is dealt with there, what time will have elapsed? After that, it may be necessary to report the Bill back to the Dáil. Where will the Dáil be at that particular stage? Will the poor people for whose relief charity is being provided get relief this Christmas?
After all the solicitude that has been shown for the poor of Dublin and after the chorus of saints which we have heard for the last five minutes. I am tempted to get on my feet and to ask whether it is in the power of the Minister at any time during the next twelve or eighteen months to terminate the activities of the Bill? Why all this solicitude for not extending the Bill to 1932? Why all this wonderful last-minute repentance on the part of Deputy Byrne? Why this remarkable solicitude on the part of Deputy Byrne for the poor downtrodden Dublin shopkeepers?
Mr. Byrne
They do not arise.
I am sure they do not rise to anything.
Mr. Byrne
They rise to greater heights than the Deputy from Cork.
I rise to ask a question and to acknowledge the death-bed repentance of the trinity on my right. Is it not competent for the Minister at any time during the next eighteen months to introduce a short measure repealing the Act, if and when the social conditions of Dublin are such as to justify its repeal?
Mr. Byrne
Is it not competent for the Minister, on the termination of the Act, to introduce another Bill extending the period of relief? Is not that the common-sense way of looking at it, and not the Cork way?
I rise to join in the appeal to the Minister, and I do so on the ground that for the first time in this debate we have heard something that denotes that there is a future before the City of Dublin. Up to the present all the speeches against the measure were based on the fact that Dublin was going down the hill, and that the poor of the twenty-six counties were flocking in here to submerge the city altogether. As a Deputy from the South of Ireland, I wish to say that none of our destitute poor come to Dublin. There may be an odd painter or carpenter or labourer who may come along here, but when they come up it is stated that there is no room for them. There is nothing for them in the eyes of certain citizens of the city but to starve them back again to the country. I congratulate the Minister on his pluck in coming to the rescue of the poor, and I will stand to the hilt in support of him.
I read a report of a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce, a body which consists of the leading and the wealthy merchants of the city. One of them, Sir Thomas Robinson, went so far as to say that not a shilling in the £ would be levied on the ratepayers of Dublin to safeguard the interests of those who are down and out and in dire distress. He was followed by the Chairman of the Pembroke Urban Council and Mr. Jacob. They all denounced the Bill because of the fact, as they allege, that it was the submerged from the twenty-six counties who invaded Dublin. All I have to say to these gentlemen of the Chamber of Commerce is that while they send out every Monday morning an army of travellers to scour the twenty-six counties for orders and for money, they never consider the fact of having a poor man from the country amongst them, nor are they prepared to give any consideration to him. I wish to state here distinctly that we in the rest of the Free State have no ambition to boycott Dublin. We love Dublin, and we are proud of it, and we are delighted that it is extending. Anyone coming up here and looking around Dublin will find that it is extending in all directions. The Minister is perfectly right, if in 18 months he withdraws the Bill because there is a future of prosperity for the city, notwithstanding what these gentlemen say about its future.
We down in the twenty-six counties realise that we have a certain power, if the boycott was put on against us, if there was a rope drawn around the whole city, and if the banner were raised by the citizens of Dublin, "We will accept all the twenty-six counties have to give us when the people come up on business to spend their money." When people down the country are married they come up and spend their money and their honeymoon in Dublin, but where, I ask, do the leading citizens of Dublin go on their honeymoon? Do they go down to the South to hear the Bells of Shandon, or do they go down to the beauty spots along the coast-line of Waterford, Cork and Kerry? No, they fly across to the Riviera. There is no place whatever in the Saorstát good enough for these wealthy citizens of Dublin in which to spend their honeymoon in the Saorstát. As far as we are concerned, we are determined to have fair play, and it is a slander and a libel to say that the 5,000 families amongst the Dublin citizens who, it is said, are suffering from starvation, are 5,000 families that came to the city from other parts of the twenty-six counties. We repudiate that, and we also repudiate the allegation —and I speak as a member of the Board of Health of West Cork which has a jurisdiction over six Unions— that we have ever let down the poor. Only last year we paid an additional sum of £2,000 in home assistance. We never questioned them as to where they were born. They never stood in want of justice from the boards of health throughout the twenty-six counties. They came gallantly to the assistance of these people and saved them from starvation.
I hope the citizens of Dublin will stand solidly behind the Minister and repudiate the Chamber of Commerce. The citizens as a whole have acted well in this matter. There was no public meeting, or no repudiation of the Minister or of the Bill from the mass of people. Neither was there any resolution from the Chamber of Commerce when Commissioners were appointed to administer the affairs of the city. These Commissioners by their ability have reduced the rates considerably. Was there a resolution then from the Chamber of Commerce, or did they thank the Government? No, they concealed their hostility until the moment when the Government came forward to feed the destitute and the poor. All I have to say to these gentlemen is, that there is a greater law than the law of the Dáil, and that is the Divine commandment which says: "Out of your wealth, feed the hungry, and clothe the naked."
I join with our eloquent colleague from Cork and fully endorse what he says in regard to the necessity of feeding the poor. I happen also to be a ratepayer, not perhaps a very large one, in the city of Dublin, and no more than anybody else, especially persons with a little wealth I do not relish having to pay an extra £30, £40, or £50 as an addition to the rates that will come about as a result of the passing of the Bill. In all probability the addition will amount to that per year. However, I see the necessity for this Bill and I support the amendment of the Minister because I see no immediate prospect of improvement in the situation of the unemployed in the city. As other Deputies have said if there is a change inside a year the Minister, seeing that change, will have an opportunity of bringing it to the notice of the House by way of a Bill or otherwise, reducing the proposed expense on the ratepayers of Dublin. I, as one of the representatives of the ratepayers of Dublin, cannot vote for a Bill of this kind without serious consideration. That applies to every Deputy in the House, but particularly to those who represent the city of Dublin, but we have got to weigh up on the other side the starving people that we are up against every day of the week.
There is not a Deputy in this House from Dublin but knows of the awful conditions that exist here in this city. They must every day in the week have their post box filled with claims of one kind or another for subscriptions to one benevolent society or another. I have certainly never known things to be worse. They have been bad enough in the past, but I doubt if they have been as bad as I know them to be now, judging by the claims made on me at any rate. Despite the fact that there is admittedly a feeling of hostility amongst some of the ratepayers towards this Bill, I certainly, as one who has some feeling of Christianity left, feel that it is my duty to pass this Bill and to impose extra taxation on the ratepayers so that the starving—the word "hungry" is not enough—and the naked poor of Dublin are fed and clothed. I do not believe that the need would be as great as it is if we as citizens and as Irishmen did our duty. Many of us do not do it. Many of those who are most prominent in protesting against the passing of the Bill do not, I am convinced, do their duty. I have got resolutions from public bodies in the city of Dublin protesting against the imposition that this Bill will put on the rates of Dublin.
I am satisfied that if one had the power to send an inspector to one of these meetings and examine the clothes that these people wore they would find that a very small percentage of them employed Dublin tailors, or Irish workers who manufacture Irish cloth to clothe them. That is my honest belief, and if they did their duty in that way and got, as I believe they would get, as good value in Dublin and in Irish materials and bought Irish boots made in Dublin, they would help to employ some of the hundreds of boot-makers in the city without having the compulsion of the extra tax we have to impose on them as a result of the impoverished condition of our industries. That is the position in Dublin. The same thing applies in the home, and now, as we are approaching the Christmas season, it is no harm to remind citizens of this, that we are not doing our duties as citizens. I say that to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and other such bodies.
I have not heard a single objection to helping the destitute people by anybody throughout the whole of the discussion, and I think it is unfair for the Deputy to make the attack he is making.
I do not say the Chamber of Commerce protested against the feeding of the poor of Dublin. I did not intend to say it, because I have not heard of any resolution to that effect. But I have heard private individuals and public bodies protesting against this Bill.
On this amendment, we are dealing with whether it is to be 1931 or 1932. This discussion would be more appropriate on the Fifth Stage or on the question that the Bill be received for final consideration.
It arose on some of the remarks that went outside the scope of the amendment. I will go further. Not only have those organised and unorganised bodies which I have heard protesting not done their duty, but I say that we would not have the necessity for this Bill or have it rushed on us in an unexpected way if the Commissioners of Dublin, who in the last five years have held posts formerly held by the boards of guardians, had been doing their duty. This Bill would be unnecessary if they had been doing their duty.
That is clearly outside the Bill.
I will leave it at that. I am sure that a great proportion of this House has sympathy with the people who have to pay, and they will have to pay heavily. I have sympathy with the struggling industries around Dublin and the struggling shopkeepers of all kinds, on whom a big burden will be placed. But some of those who have directly or indirectly sent protests to me are merely agents in this country. They were from shopkeepers in the principal streets in the city who were agents of foreign houses.
I think the Deputy is travelling altogether from the amendment.
I may be straying, but I think at this moment that it is no harm to emphasise this point in view of the protest made against the amendment. I will bring my remarks into line with the amendment by saying that if Irish industries were supported there would be perhaps, at a not very far distant date, an opportunity for review, but unless serious steps are taken by the whole body of the citizens there will be no chance of this Bill being withdrawn in 1932 or 1933. That is what I would like to stress. We are not doing our duty as we ought to do it. If we did, there would not be such poverty and hunger in the city.
As to the Chairman of the Cork Chamber of Commerce, I read a speech of his a few days ago in the paper, and he commented on the fact that even in the City of Cork there was widespread ignorance on the part of the citizens of Cork of the industries and what was produced by them. Not only did they inadequately support the industries, but they did not know of the industries. I do not know whether that is true of Dublin or not, but we certainly are not doing our duty, and if any word of mine has weight, I say one of the ways to end the necessity for a Bill of this kind is for citizens to do their duty by the industries as citizens and ratepayers. I do not enjoy having to pay the large sum I will have to pay out of my slender resources, but I would sooner do that than have my conscience pricking me for many a long day and many a long night by knowing that there are thousands of people who have been without a meal for many days in the week and without proper covering during the cold winter.
What interests me entirely in this amendment is the use of Parliamentary time. As I think in all parts of the House we accept it that once we are bringing Dublin city and country into line with the rest of the country in making this particular class of relief to the able-bodied available, then there is no going back. I think that being generally agreed, there perhaps ought not to be any difficulty about this amendment. As I say, my only interest in the matter is the taking up of Parliamentary time. We have seen how much time this particular Bill has taken. I hope before the Dáil rises to ask for leave to introduce a Bill dealing with the future government of Dublin and to circulate the measure itself as soon as possible after that, but in ample time to enable us to approach a discussion when we reassemble after Christmas. As I said, I also hoped we would have a consolidating measure that might be in time to pick up the general situation before this particular Bill drops. But having it generally understood, there is no going back on the question of the type of relief going to be made available in the City and County of Dublin in this particular measure, and taking it in view of the terrible fears and scares that have been stirred up about this particular measure, I would not object to leaving the Bill as it stands, with March, 1931, in, because we would either have to continue this measure, if it is possible, under the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill next year or deal with it over again, probably in a one-clause continuing Bill that would bring the whole matter before the Oireachtas again. I sympathise with people who are asking that that would be the case and, perhaps, in the circumstances, Deputy O'Kelly would sympathise with their point of view too. It simply means that we would get this measure extended, if necessary, before 31st March, 1931, with a further taking up of the time of the House in discussing the matter. We will have a lot more information by that time as to what the incidence of this burden will be on the different areas. Perhaps it could be more satisfactorily approached if the House was willing to take the risk of having to spend more time in a discussion of the measure before the 31st March, 1931. So perhaps Deputies would agree that I might withdraw the amendment.
May I ask what difference it is going to make if it is a permanent measure, because will not some kind of relief have to be given? It is only, as the Minister said, wasting time. If the other measure is not there you are going to have some kind of relief.
It is not a waste of time.
It is remarkable how amenable to the requests of some parties in the House the Minister is. On the amendment just preceding this he was asked to withdraw a certain amendment and he steadfastly refused like the Brigadier-General that he is. Now he is asked by a certain section of this House——
You joined in the asking.
You will be asked to vote upon it.
Mr. Sheehy
I always act without dictation.
Vote according to your convictions. If you vote according to the speech you made, you will vote against its withdrawal.
Deputy Anthony must address the Chair.
I will move that we do not give the Minister leave to withdraw the amendment.
If the Minister has not backbone enough to stand up to this gang, we will put a bit of backbone into him.
The Deputy has no right to refer to any member or any section of this House as "a gang." The Deputy must withdraw that remark.
I withdraw "gang." I do not know what other name I will give them.
The Deputy will call them nothing but Deputies who are properly elected to this House.
I have withdrawn it.
May I appeal to the two Deputies to show a better spirit in the matter than they have shown. This matter has been discussed at very great length. It is a very important problem from the point of view of the City of Dublin. It is a question of fixing a date, and that may require further discussion in this House. Although I do not commit myself to saying it, I hope that the consolidating measure will be passed before the 31st March, 1931. If not it will be brought forward on the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill or in a special clause. I am in the position that I have to say that it is impossible from my point of view to estimate the probable cost of this measure.
I suggested that the cost would be nothing like the costs that have been suggested. I am sure that Deputies on all sides of the House would be willing to co-operate in dealing with such an important problem. I think they all realise the scare that has been raised over this particular measure, very unnecessarily and very inadvisably, in my opinion. If it will help to allay the scare by allowing the date here 1931, instead of 1932, it may even of itself do some good. If it does bring up a discussion of this matter before the 31st March, 1931, nothing would be lost by that.
I do not think the Minister has actually made a case for withdrawing the amendment. He made a case for retaining it, in so far as he said that in a certain eventuality it possibly would be necessary for him again to come to this House with a similar measure, and have upon that measure the same discussion and occupy the same Parliamentary time. The plea he has made is that if we consent to the withdrawal of this amendment the fears that at present exercise a certain body of the citizens — not the whole body of the citizens by any means — are going to be allayed. The only thing that is going to allay these fears, if they are genuine fears, which I seriously doubt, is actual experience, and not the question of whether 1931 or 1932 remains in the Bill. It is actual experience of the working of this Act that is going to allay these fears. It is going to demonstrate to the citizens that it may be cheaper to give this relief in a regular way than in the present irregular fashion. It may be cheaper to provide normal work with the moneys that will be expended under this Bill than to continue to pauperise these people who are at present unemployed by private doles and charity. I do not think the Minister has made any case for the withdrawal of the amendment. I would suggest to him that the motives which exercised him in putting this amendment down are still strong, notwithstanding the appeals which have been made to him from his own benches, and that he ought to put this amendment and, if necessary, carry it. He has carried other amendments which were much less acceptable to both sides of the House.
I appeal to Deputies who are opposed to the withdrawal of this amendment to reconsider the matter. It really is not a waste of time at all, if it is necessary to bring this before the House again. It is most important that we should have an opportunity at as early a date as possible to consider the various reactions of a Bill like this and the heavy charges it imposes. Instead of being a waste of time, it is one of the most important ways in which we could possibly spend our time. We all know how easy it would be to put an extending Bill before the House again if the necessity exists, as I am afraid it will exist. If there is a necessity for a short extending Bill, and for considering the reactions of this measure, surely it is not a waste of time. I urge on Deputies to withdraw their opposition to the withdrawal of this amendment.
Leave to withdraw is not granted. Therefore, I am putting the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 71.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- 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.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- 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.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- 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.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Cassidy and G. Boland; Níl, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
I move that Deputies Good, Major Bryan Cooper, and Thrift, the real Government, should occupy the Front Bench.
That is a very disorderly remark on the part of Deputy Corry. The Deputy will have to conduct himself in this House.
Question —"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"— put and agreed to.
Fifth Stage fixed for Friday, 29th November.