The main argument used in support of this Bill has been that the city of Dublin is being asked under it to do what the rest of the country has been doing for years. In my opinion, that statement will not bear examination. It is a statement that is not true either in substance or in fact. I am of opinion that by the passage of this Bill preferential treatment will be given to other parts of the country at the expense of Dublin. If the estimate of the City Commissioners as to the cost of outdoor relief be true, 5,000 cases of relief will cost the city the gigantic sum of £250,000. To this amount must be added what is already being expended on poor law relief. In the North and South Dublin Unions at the present moment the sum of £264,000 is being expended.
That is £514,000 of an annual debt charge on the trade and commerce of Dublin. I know of no other part of the country, I know of no other county in the Free State that has got to bear a similar burden to that which this Bill imposes upon Dublin. It has been suggested that, as far as the commerce of this city is concerned, the burden imposed by this Bill can be transferred in the usual way to the consumers. I would point out to this House as a business man with vast experience in these matters that such a thing is not possible. Really the volume of trade available at present is too small and the competition is so keen that the ordinary business man cannot afford to risk the loss of a reduction in his turnover by increasing the price of the commodities he sells in the ordinary way. To explain my meaning I would just cite the case of three firms who will be affected by this Bill. I do not propose to give their names. The first is the case of a firm with a rateable valuation of £2,900. If the estimate of the Commissioners be correct, the rates payable by that firm would be increased by 5/- in the £. There is a difference of opinion as to the actual figure, but taking it at 5/-, the increase in rates to this particular firm will be £725. That is the effect the passage of this Bill will have upon that firm. The dividend paid by that firm is ten per cent. In No. 2 case which I cite, the rateable valuation of the firm, which is a firm in my constituency, is £2,500. If an increase of 5/- in the rates, as suggested by the Commissioners, is added, the increase will amount to £625. That firm has only been able to pay a dividend for some years past by drawing on its reserves. In case No. 3, the rateable valuation is £800, and the increase under this Bill on the firm will be £200.