Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Dec 1929

Vol. 32 No. 13

Poor Relief (Dublin) Bill, 1929—Fifth Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Byrne

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.

Mr. Davin

On what did the firm you mention pay a dividend? Was it on the Preference or on the Ordinary shares that they have been paying a dividend out of the reserves?

Mr. Byrne

I am speaking of the ordinary shares. Now, this third firm that I have cited was unable to pay a dividend. It is a firm employing a large amount of labour, and it has been unable to pay a dividend on the ordinary shares or preference shares. The net profit for the year was £316. This Bill will add to the burden of that struggling firm a sum of £200. That firm has been giving a large amount of employment. What will the reactions of this Bill be upon unemployment in the city of Dublin? I say it is particularly unfair and inequitable to ask the city of Dublin to shoulder this staggering load. I say that in view of the sacrifices that the city of Dublin has already made so far as the national interests are concerned. I think I may briefly refer to the fact that the city of Dublin electricity undertaking has been compulsorily acquired from the ratepayers of the city without one penny compensation being paid for the undertaking.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must not go into that particular question. He must confine himself to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Byrne

I will confine myself by citing just two sets of figures about the electricity undertaking.

An Ceann Comhairle

I want to hear nothing at all about the electricity undertaking.

Mr. Aiken

All the Deputy wants to do is to talk. He is not going to vote against the Government no matter how much he talks.

Mr. Byrne

The ratepayers of Dublin have lost £2,121,000 by the electricity undertaking exclusive of the burden placed on them by this Bill. That is a fact that should be borne in mind when country Deputies say that we in Dublin have no grievance and that we are in the same position as the rest of the country. I say that is a statement which no country Deputy can substantiate. If one looks at this amount of money that is being spent —if one looks at the total relief expended by the whole country; if one looks at that figure, and if one realises that £2,000,000 odd is extracted from the city of Dublin under this Bill, and when we see the bill for both outdoor relief and indoor relief for the whole country we realise the magnitude of the load Dublin is asked to bear. A sum of £1,196,000 is imposed on the whole country for the relief of distress. The gigantic sum of over half a million of money will have to be contributed by the city of Dublin in excess of the total relief paid by the rest of the country. To argue under such circumstances that this Bill gives the same treatment to ratepayers of the city of Dublin as has been meted out to the rest of the country is a gross perversion of the truth.

We have been told that this is a problem for the citizens of Dublin alone. I would like to draw attention to the fact that Mr. MacLysaght, the Chairman of the Dublin Union Commissioners, claimed that three years' residential qualification should be inserted in such a Bill as this before the Bill had been introduced. He also stated that in a period of nine months of 866 persons admitted to the workhouse none of them had been resident for a period of three years in the city of Dublin; 513 were under thirty years of age, and 230 were 59 years of age and upwards. I think that clearly and distinctly points out that as far as we are concerned the responsibility for the burden that is sought to be imposed by this Bill should be borne by the rest of the country as well as by Dublin. We are told here frequently that the whole burden as far as the rates and taxes of this country are concerned has been thrown on the agricultural community. If the figures I have laid before the House are accurate—and it is up to any Deputy to disprove them—I maintain that agriculture is becoming the pet of this country, and that it is getting preferences to which it is in no sense entitled. Perhaps it would be too late now to incorporate in this Bill an amendment to double the agricultural grant which the farmers of the country are to receive and to grant the £2,000,000 for the cost of derating which is to be put into operation soon. I think that is the only way to satisfy the agricultural community. Give them everything at the expense of Dublin City.

Mr. Corry

When the farmers have Deputy Byrne's "Shamrock" shovels they will have enough subsidies.

Mr. Byrne

This Bill as it is now proposed to pass simply transfers national responsibilities on to the shoulders of the Dublin ratepayers. It is an inequitable Bill, and I do hope that when its period expires it will not be extended for a further year.

Mr. Corry

I can see the difficulty in which the Minister for Local Government is in trying to get those people to shoulder their responsibilities. We can realise that when we hear the arguments that have been put up in the House here in the last few days by the combination against this Bill. I hope that the pressure brought to bear on the Minister will not induce him to withdraw the Bill as he withdrew his amendment the other night. As for Deputy Byrne's remarks, I have an answer here, and I will quote from Deputy Good, who gives the answer to Deputy Byrne in a nutshell. Deputy Good states: "It has been pointed out in these discussions that Dublin is a distributing centre. As we place these taxes on those who distribute in Dublin, we put on them an additional overhead charge. That overhead charge is passed on to the commodities which these agents distribute." And then Deputy Boland added: "A little more." And Deputy Good went on to say: "These commodities are sold with this super-tax to the local shopkeepers. The local shopkeepers sell these commodities, with a little bit added, to the farming community and other industrialists." I am quoting from volume 32, No. 5, columns 1791-2. Now there I hope Deputy Byrne will see the strength of the arguments used by Deputy Good.

Mr. Byrne

I simply deny the truth of them.

Mr. Corry

This Bill not alone does not put a burden on the shopkeepers of Dublin, but it gives them a financial advantage inasmuch as it gives them an excuse for putting a little more on to the unfortunate agricultural community to whom they sell their commodities. That is Deputy Good's argument.

Mr. Good

As Deputy Corry sees it.

Mr. Corry

Does the Deputy deny his statement? Can the Deputy read anything else into it? "The local shopkeepers sell these commodities with a little bit added to the farming community and other industrialists." That is Deputy Good's statement.

I certainly agree that Deputy Byrne and Deputy Good are well able to shift any burden placed on them to some other shoulders. I wish that we could find some other means by which we could prevent them from shifting that burden. That is the difficulty. The whole argument used by Dublin Deputies in regard to this Bill seems to be that the burden should be borne by the country at large. In Cork we provide for our own poor and we do not ask Dublin to contribute to their relief. As regards the argument about the influx of country people into Dublin, I have never heard Deputies stand up here and argue that we were gaining by the emigration of young men to America. If people from the countries are migrating to Dublin it should be remembered that the country people have to feed and educate them when they are unable to work and, if they come to Dublin afterwards, the people in Dublin benefit. The people who come from Cork are not, of course, unemployed because they are people with brains, who can hold their own anywhere. I was rather surprised at the action of the Minister when I saw the area of charge in this Bill and when I compared his attitude with that which he has taken in other areas.

This Bill confines the area of charge to the city of Dublin and some adjoining townships, but in the area controlled by the South Cork Board of Assistance the rural portions have to pay 4½d. in the pound for the relief of the poor in the city, some twenty or thirty miles distant. On two occasions we sent a unanimous resolution from that body asking that relief of the city poor be made a separate charge but, so far, we have got no reply from the Minister's Department. The argument of Dublin Deputies is nonsensical. The country at large is actually supporting Dublin. Dublin is living on it. We are paying the hosts of officials out of taxes levied on the country at large, but these officials spend their money in Dublin. Look at the income which Dublin derives from the 152 members who come up here each week. All these things count. If there is a nurse to be appointed down in Cork she has to come to Dublin to interview the Appointments Commissioners. All the doctors in the country who are looking for dispensary appointments are dragged up here and have to spend a week or a fortnight in hotels while waiting for an interview with these Commissioners.

Mr. Byrne

Cork men are very successful.

Mr. Corry

They are not. I know some of them who came up here at least twenty times but were not successful, and every time they came they left something in Dublin. Dublin is becoming more and more centralised. Instead of the country at large contributing towards the relief of the Dublin poor, it is time that the Dublin people paid something to the country at large. Last week I gave instances in which, under the central purchasing scheme, practically everything, even the brush for sweeping the Union yard in Cork, has to be bought in Dublin. I do not know whether Deputy Byrne has got these in addition to the "Shamrock" shovels. It is about time that those who represent Dublin realise that they ought to pay the piper. Deputy Lemass remarked that he was afraid that the Bill might result in some industries leaving Dublin, but it will have a good effect if it results in bringing back to Cork some of the industries that ran away from that city to Dublin. The whole idea behind the Executive Council seems to be to drag every industry to Dublin. For instance, speaking on the question of a tariff on flour, the Minister for External Affairs said that if the mills in Cork would shift their business elsewhere it would be a good thing; in other words, that they should follow such firms as Crosse and Blackwell to Dublin. In my opinion the country at large is paying too much to Dublin at present, and those who squeal about Dublin having to bear the burden should be made to shoulder their own responsibility.

Mr. Good

Does the Deputy agree with the statement made by Deputy de Valera?

Mr. Corry

Does Deputy Good agree with the statement that every burden placed on his shoulders will be passed on by him, and that he will add something more for interest?

Mr. Davin

Deputy Byrne can congratulate himself, if it is any satisfaction to him, upon holding up the Bill for a week, and I am sure that the able-bodied destitute poor in the North City will pass a unanimous vote of thanks to him.

Mr. Byrne

Perhaps the Deputy can explain how that is?

Mr. Davin

By the Deputy making a speech last Friday and continuing it to-day.

Mr. Byrne

In all, it lasted eight minutes, yet it held up the Bill for a week.

Mr. Davin

The Deputy said: "If ever a dishonest debate has taken place in this House it is the debate that is now drawing to a close. Neither from the Fianna Fáil nor from the Labour Benches has there been honesty in considering the pros and cons of this very important subject." The Deputy's illustration of honesty is to shout and bawl and quote figures without giving any proof in support of them.

Mr. Byrne

I have them here.

Mr. Davin

Although he eloquently protested at various stages of the measure, he walked into the Division Lobby in support of the Minister when he challenged a division. Is that an example of political honesty? Then we have Deputy Good, who speaks for the Chamber of Commerce, moving an amendment at a particular stage of the Bill to extend the proposed area of charge. The members of this Party sat silent and listened to the Deputy's case for the proposal to extend the area. We never said a word one way or the other. We had decided beforehand to support the amendment so that we might standardise the area of charge so far as the poor law relief areas are concerned.

Mr. Good

Why did the Deputy not tell us that? Why was he so silent?

Mr. Davin

We deliberately remained silent in order to find out whether Deputy Good was sufficiently sincere to put the matter to a division, because, if he had done so, I am sure that he would have been surprised to find the Labour Deputies walking into the Lobby with him. These are the examples of political honesty which we have had from the so-called opponents of this measure. I do not think that the residential clause in the Bill is justified by any facts or figures so far given by the Minister or those who support him. I think that the administration of that clause will cause a great deal of confusion and, perhaps, hardship on those who are genuinely entitled to relief. Generally speaking, the able-bodied destitute poor have not a permanent address. As soon as the Bill becomes law they will apply to the recognised authority for relief. I presume that they will be asked their names and addresses, and then there will have to be verification concerning them. I suppose that by the time the information given in their application has been verified some will be looking for relief in the shape of a coffin. I do not think that that clause has been justified by any arguments here. Of course Deputy Good has been repeating like a parrot the language used in a leading article in the "Irish Times" in reference to the question of the influx of country men and women to Dublin.

The "Irish Times," in a leading article dated the 26th November, stated:

"If the persons who will derive benefit from the new law were natives of the area which is being required to bear the cost of their maintenance, there would be a logical case for the Bill, but it is a notorious fact that a very substantial proportion of them has no real connection with the capital. Dublin has always attracted the unemployed, and thousands of men and women who are on the dole"—the dole, mind you—"in Dublin are natives of other counties."

I regret to have to say that a good many of the young men and women of the country, more of them than should, are coming to the City of Dublin. For the last four or five years I personally have always discouraged young men and women from coming to the city, where there is no hope of their getting work for which, in the ordinary course of events, they would be qualified. Take the situation as it existed up to four or five years ago. I should say that a few thousand per annum of the people who normally came into the city were absorbed in undertakings like the railway companies, Guinness's Brewery, Jacob's, the big drapery houses, and the other trading houses of the city. All these avenues are closed and have been closed to them for the last four or five years, but these young people still continue to come to the city. I regret to have to state that many of the young women of the rising generation are looking for jobs of a kind where they will not have to wash their hands after the day's work is done. It is regrettable, but it is on record so that any Deputy or any person may know, that we have a waiting list of six or seven thousand for the Gárda Síochána; we have thirty or forty applicants for every dispensary medical officership in the country, and we have hundreds looking for jobs as typists or drapers' assistants. All that goes to prove that the rising generation are looking for employment in a direction where they will have to wait a long time before they get that which they seek.

The avenues of employment normally open to such persons five or six years ago in the firms I have named are now closed. Therefore, there is no opening for those who may come to the city in the hope of getting employment, or there is less now than in the past. So far as my constituency is concerned, I can say that the young men and women who have been coming to the city looking for employment and who did not get it, or who, having found employment, lost it, do not in the ordinary course of events become a charge on the rates. I state that most emphatically. If those people come to the city, find employment and lose it after a short period, or if they fail to find the employment for which they are looking, they usually return to their families, their friends or relations and become a charge on them instead of on the ratepayers here. I am sure that Deputies from other areas can speak in the same manner as I speak, having regard to the knowledge which I have on this matter.

I wonder has Deputy Byrne or Deputy Good taken any trouble to find out what is the percentage of publicans, drapers and professional men, or those engaged in professional or clerical occupations in the city who have come to the city within the last twenty or thirty years? What would be the percentage of that particular type of person as compared with the unskilled person who came to the city within the same period and who is now a charge on the rates of the city? Would Deputy Byrne furnish some figures on that matter in the same manner as he tried to enlighten the House on other figures without giving the names of the firms?

Mr. J.J. Byrne

Does the Deputy suggest that a professional man could come into the city and take up a profession without means, and is there any comparison between a professional man and the ordinary unemployed person?

Mr. Davin

My case is that the professional men, drapers, publicans and others of that kind who have come from the country within the period which I have stated, should bear a fair share of responsibility for the upkeep of those who also came from the country and who are now going to be a charge on the city.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

Does the Deputy say that a publican is a professional man?

Mr. Davin

I did not say any such thing. I think the Deputy merely wishes to say something for the purpose of interrupting me. If he listened to what I said he would know that I certainly did not describe a publican as a professional man, but if the Deputy wishes me to do so, I shall, for the sake of saving any further argument on that matter. Is the Deputy aware that 54 per cent. of those on the Civil Service Estimates are living in Dublin? Will he deny that that fact alone is a big asset to the city of Dublin compared with any other town or part of the country? While I dislike, very much dislike, certain sections of the Bill, I am not going to take the responsibility of voting against its final passage.

I suspect—I hope I am wrong; I will express regret to the Minister if I am—that there is a certain amount of friendly relationship between Deputy Good, in spite of his protests, and the Minister in regard to certain clauses. That was shown very clearly in the Division Lobby. I suspect that the Minister, and we must go by past experiences in the matter, is going to attempt to utilise certain clauses for the purpose of making use of the destitute able-bodied poor by employing them at a rate of wages that will undermine the conditions of those engaged in industrial occupations in Dublin. If that be so, I would be very sorry to vote for the Final Stage, but in spite of the deliberately dishonest criticisms on this Bill, I am going to take the risk of voting for the Final Stage.

Mr. Clery

It seems to me that anything can be said on the Final Stage of this Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is an erroneous idea.

Mr. Clery

I am going to be very brief. The remarks made by Deputy J.J. Byrne and others, which I resent, would give the impression that every down-and-out in Dublin has come from the country, simply because he feels that Dublin is going to give him a dole. That is not so, as has been pointed out by Deputy Davin. In fact if Deputy Byrne would ascertain who the prosperous men in Dublin are, he would find that the greater percentage of the men who built Dublin have come from the country. I think it might very well be said that it is very hard to find a real Dublin man in Dublin, with the exception of Deputy Byrne. I believe this Bill will do good in one direction which Deputy Byrne has not yet seen. It will make those people, who represent the independent business-men, the Chamber of Commerce, open their eyes to the real situation in the country. For the past six or seven years we have heard nothing from these people about the unemployed in Dublin or about the state of unemployment in the country. These are the people for whom Deputy Good and Deputy Byrne now speak.

On the contrary, the only thing we have had here from the Chamber of Commerce and these independent business men for several years past is the cant of prosperity and "round-the-corner" and about how well the country and the banks are getting on. If, instead of that trash and humbug they came forward with during the past six or seven years, they had seen the situation as it was, there would probably be no necessity to introduce this Bill. Everyone deplores that the people in Dublin have to pay more rates to meet this Bill. It is still more deplorable that the business men, for whom these few Deputies speak, did not impress on the Government that there should be some other means of finding the money to foot the bill besides putting it on the rates.

Mr. Good

What does the Deputy suggest?

Mr. Clery

Since we came in here we have been suggesting that certain economies should be effected in Government services, and every time we suggested or proposed such a thing we were laughed and sneered at by those Deputies and by the newspapers who are now crying out about the rates being increased in Dublin.

Mr. Good

Let us get down to brass tacks. What does the Deputy suggest with regard to the Bill?

Mr. Clery

With regard to finding the money, we have often suggested that there are means——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy, I am sure, is quite clear that that is outside the Bill.

Mr. Clery

We have often suggested that there are means of finding the money to meet unemployment besides putting it on the rates. If our advice was taken on many occasions, and these Independent Deputies and Deputy Byrne and the Chamber of Commerce told the Government that there could be economics effected to meet unemployment and similar matters, there would be no necessity to burden the ratepayers with 4/- or 5/- in the £ to meet the Bill. I am glad in a way that they are burdened with that extra amount. It will probably make the Chamber of Commerce and these other people change their tune, and instead of the humbug of "round-the-corner" and the prosperity cant that we have heard, now that their pockets are being hit they will begin to realise the real situation.

Mr. Good

Is the Deputy aware that the Chamber of Commerce has been preaching economy for the last five years to my own knowledge?

Mr. Clery

Behind closed doors.

General Mulcahy

In spite of everything that has been said, the introduction of this measure is simply extending to the city and county of Dublin the provisions of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, making arrangements for the giving of a particular type of relief in the city and county that is available in every other city and town and county. Exception has been taken to the area of charge. I want to suggest that the area of charge in this particular measure is not out of keeping with the area of charge, say, in Cork, where part of the county has entered into a joint scheme with the city, or in Waterford, where the county as a whole has entered into a joint scheme with the city. There is a big difference between a metropolitan area of 397,000 persons, such as the present borough of Dublin when joined up with Rathmines and Pembroke, and a city like Cork where the total population is about 78,000, or a city like Waterford or Limerick where it is much less. We have, after discussion with county council representatives and those interested in the representation of the county, decided to make in this measure what will be a new county borough —that is, Dublin, Rathmines and Pembroke as one area—and the proposition that the Bill puts before the House is that a city of 397,000 persons ought to be able to deal with its own poor relief problem. Why the county, including the remaining urban districts in the county— Blackrock, Dun Laoghaire, Dalkey and Killiney—is not one special area is that, in fact, you have in County Dublin a situation in which the boards of guardians have not been dissolved. You have the Balrothery area, the Rathdown area, and the rural remnant of the Dublin area. You have a board of guardians in the Balrothery area at present distributing poor relief to the infirm, with the Balrothery area as the area of charge. In the same way, you have the Rathdown Board of Guardians doing the same thing.

We are proposing in this measure to continue this board of guardians area as the area of charge for the relief of the able-bodied in the same way as it is the area of charge for ordinary poor relief, and to continue that situation until the local government position of the city and county is changed by the Bill dealing with Greater Dublin which I propose to introduce to-morrow. That disposes of the area of charge. As far as the residential clause is concerned, I do not know what kind of statistics might be brought forward to prove that the unemployed in other parts of the country would not be attracted in fairly large numbers to-morrow, if it were possible for them to receive outdoor relief in Dublin, in case they found themselves in Dublin and unemployed.

Mr. Davin

Why do you make the period two years?

General Mulcahy

Because, after full consideration, we consider that the period is a reasonable one, and that no hardship will be done to any person in the matter of providing them with relief, because institutional relief is available for them. It is a protection that the city is entitled to against the unnecessary influx of unemployed persons. Various types of remedies have been proposed so that Dublin ratepayers may escape this burden, which is supposed to be very great. Amongst these are a fifty per cent. State grant; a proposal that anything above an increase of 2/- or 3/- in the £ shall be paid by the State; a proposal to reduce the amount of rate leviable for this particular class of relief to a certain amount. I hope that those persons who are convinced that the city of Dublin cannot bear the cost of giving this particular class of relief will pursue their inquiries in the matter as to how it might be relieved of this burden—pursue them in a more systematic fashion than they have been pursued, although this question has been before us since June last. Deputy Good maintains that the cost of relief in Dublin is the second or third highest in the country. In fact, the total cost of poor relief in the city of Dublin is less than in any of the other county boroughs.

Mr. Good

Will you take it per head of the population, because valuation is not a reliable test? Will you give the figures in the four county boroughs per head of the population?

General Mulcahy

I could not give the figures per head of the population, but I can give the number of persons per thousand in the city of Dublin in receipt of home assistance. Of course the figures are not comparable, because in Dublin the able-bodied are not in receipt of outdoor relief.

Mr. Good

I am only talking of what we pay at present. According to a return I have in my hand as to home assistance, Dublin is the second highest per head of the population of the four county boroughs.

General Mulcahy

I do not know what particular advantage there is in taking it per head of the population.

Mr. Good

Because that is the only true test.

General Mulcahy

We are speaking of the people who own certain property and have to pay rates on the valuation of the property they own. The position as regards the four county boroughs is that Dublin pays 2/10 in the £ for poor relief, Cork 3/1, Waterford 3/11, and Limerick 8/-.

Mr. Good

On a low valuation.

General Mulcahy

On a revised valuation, certainly; but a rate is a rate.

Mr. Good

The valuation varies in every area. There is no comparison as to the valuation. That is why I say we must take it per head of the population if we are to arrive at a comparable figure. There is no comparison between the valuation in Limerick and Dublin. We will get nowhere on that argument.

General Mulcahy

I would like to examine that question further. If the Deputy is interested in the percentage per thousand of the population in receipt of home assistance the proportion in Dublin is 15.6, in Limerick county borough 38.8. The proportion in South Cork, which includes a rural district as well as the city, is 22.4, and the proportion in Waterford, which includes the county of Waterford, is 36.

Mr. Good

Take that per head of the population in each of these areas and compare them.

General Mulcahy

My mental arithmetic is not up to that standard.

Mr. Good

I shall give the Minister the figures. In Cork the figure is 3/11, in Limerick 3/11, in Waterford 5/2, and in Dublin 4/4.

General Mulcahy

Will the Deputy give the figure for the valuation of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford per head of the population? Do we understand that the valuation per head of the population in Dublin is less than the valuation per head of the population in Cork? You cannot take one set of figures without the other. The position is that certain rates are paid and certain specifics brought forward as to what should be done in regard to Dublin. I have stated it would be a disastrous thing in the matter of poor law relief and cost to the country if a claim was put forward from Dublin that fifty per cent. of the costs should be borne by the whole country because that example would be followed and has been followed by Limerick's demand and has been preceded by a demand from Waterford.

Mr. Good

Yet that is the recommendation of the Commission which the Minister set up. That was the recommendation of the Conference.

General Mulcahy

I suggest further that a closer and more systematic examination should be made of this matter. The Conference discussed the matter in the frame of mind that Mayo people would never hear about or that Donegal people would never hear about, and they would never dream of asking for fifty per cent. from the whole country as a contribution to their cost of outdoor relief. The Deputy also suggested that any increase above 2/- in the £ should be borne by the State. At present, the cost of poor law relief in Dublin is 2/10 in the £, and an additional 2/- to that would be 4/10 in the £. Will anyone suggest that out of the cost in Limerick, which is 8/- in the £, 3/2 should be borne by the State? I wonder what protection there would be against the distribution of general outdoor relief above a certain point if it was to be borne by the State, what check there would be? It would be the same when you came to that point as though you were going to put the whole burden upon the State. If we, by the work we are doing in Limerick, reduced the expenditure on Poor Law relief by the same amount we have reduced the total in Dublin, the rates paid in Dublin would be less than the rate paid in Limerick to-day for poor relief. This Bill, so far as it goes, enshrines our best judgment in the matter, and I sincerely say this: That if the question of the administration of poor law relief for the able-bodied in Dublin is to be approached either by public mind or the machinery administering it with the idea that there is a burden there to be shifted on to shoulders other than the shoulders of the people of Dublin because they form part of the country, then you are approaching the solution of a very serious problem in a very undesirable way, and your problem is going to go on growing because you are not looking at it justly, effectively and efficiently.

Deputy Good suggested that in the matter of dealing with poor relief the different counties should support their own nationals. I would describe that as going back to the flood in the matter of poor law.

Mr. Good

Yet there is a Bill going through the British House of Commons at this moment embodying that principle.

General Mulcahy

I would like to say that I doubt it——

Mr. Good

I can show the Minister the Bill.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

Perhaps the flood washed it away.

General Mulcahy

At any rate the proposal made by Deputy Good if it is being enshrined in British legislation at the present time is enshrined there against the evidence and the reports and express convictions of many people who for the information of the British Government have examined that problem for many years.

Mr. Good

I had better send the Bill to the Minister. He needs education.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy will have an opportunity of discussing the matter when the Bill consolidating the poor law comes before the House, as I hope it will, if I can possibly get the whole matter covered, by the autumn of next year. At any rate I shall endeavour to have it before the House before this temporary Bill has expired and the Deputy will have an opportunity of considering the whole matter by then. I would suggest that such systematic thought as can be brought to bear on the subject should be brought to bear on it and in the meantime I suggest to the ratepayers and citizens of Dublin to face their own problem.

Mr. Good

And only their own.

General Mulcahy

And only their own if you like and if there are problems to be solved they can only be solved by hard thinking and clear and considered decisions, and for the purposes to which this Bill is intended we have taken clear and considered decisions. So far as anything Deputy Davin has said as to the sinister intentions of this Bill he can simply wait and see.

Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be sent to the Seanad.

An Ceann Comhairle

I take it that involves the discharge of Item No.18 on the Order Paper, Dublin City and County (Relief of the Poor) Bill, 1929, from the Seanad and the Order will be discharged accordingly.