I move the Second Reading of the Poor Relief (Dublin) Bill, 1931. The proposal is to continue for a period of five years the Poor Relief (Dublin) Act of 1929. That Act applied to the City and County of Dublin the statutory provision which had previously been applied to the country as a whole that outdoor assistance could be given to the able-bodied, thus bringing Dublin City and County into line with the rest of the country as far as that was concerned. In addition, it contained certain provisions by which persons applying for relief in Dublin and not having two years continuous residence in Dublin, while being prevented from getting outdoor relief, could get relieved in the Dublin Union. The Act provided that certain relief works could be organised and that persons applying for relief who were not entitled to relief under the Act might however have their travelling expenses paid to some district outside Dublin City or County where they had a prospect of getting work.
So far as the cost of that relief is concerned the number so applying was comparatively few. For almost the eleven months involved in the present year the total cost is only £28 10s. 0d. in the matter of paying the travelling expenses. With the exception of the relief works which were in operation when the Act was being passed and continued until the end of 1930 on the development of lands near the Albert College Farm at Glasnevin, near the Home Farm Road—no relief works have gone ahead with under the Act. But I understand that there is cooperation between the Union authorities and the Dublin Corporation, so that on the Dublin Corporation schemes certain of the men employed are men who are recommended for employment by the Union authorities —that is to say, men who are out of work and who are in receipt of assistance.
A considerable amount of anxiety was expressed as to the burden which the 1929 Act would put on the rates in Dublin. I argued that it was very difficult for anyone to give an estimate as to what the cost of this might be without practical experience of the working of the schemes, while at the same time refusing to admit that the expenditure was going to be as high as some of the people suggested. In fact, at the beginning of the year it was estimated that the total cost of this relief for the year would be £132,000, amounting to approximately a rate of 1s. 7d. in the £ on the City. I speak now of the Dublin Union, because it is the main problem in the matter. Deputies will recollect that as far as the present Dublin Union is concerned, two areas of charge were contemplated; that there would be one area of charge for this class of relief for the area which would contain the County Borough of Dublin at that time and the Urban Districts of Rathmines and Pembroke. That would be one area which would support its own burden in the matter of this particular class of relief. The rest of the Union —the rural portion—would be another area of charge. The total amount that was estimated for the whole of the Dublin Union was £132,000, or approximately a rate of between 1s. 6d. and 1s. 7d. in the £ as far as the City was concerned.
A revised estimate, prepared in January, 1931, shows that the expenditure for the whole area up to the 31st March next will be not £132,000, but only a sum of £81,000, involving, so far as the different amounts are concerned, an amount equivalent to a rate of 1s. in the new County Borough of Dublin, and about 6d. in the rural part of the Dublin Union.
As far as this particular class of relief is concerned, the figures are not available for Balrothery or the Rathdown Union, but so far as the rates for Union charges, that is for outdoor relief and all classes of medical charities and institutional relief—that is to say, Union charges generally are concerned, the rates for the recent years in Balrothery, Rathdown, and Dublin City are as follows:—
For 1929-30 in Dublin City the rate was 2s. 3¼d.; in the same area in 1930-31 the rate was 4s. 1d. That includes an excess of about 7d., as a result of over estimating for the relief of the able-bodied. The estimate for 1931-32 is 3s. 6d. in the £.
In the Dublin rural the estimate for 1929-30 was 2s. 8½d.; for 1930-31, 3s. 4d. which figure involved the same type of over-estimation; and for 1931-32 the estimate is 2s. 6d. In Balrothery for 1929-30 the estimate was 3s. 6½d.; 1930-31, 2s. 4½d., and in 1931-32 it is estimated at 3s. 2½d. which will involve a rate of about 6d. to make up for existing liabilities perhaps due to under-estimation last year. The rate in Rathdown for 1929-30 was 3s. 2d.; 1930-31 3s. 9¾d., and 1931-32 3s. 5¼d. So that in fact as between two years ago in Balrothery there is a reduction but an increase of 3¼d. so far as Rathdown is concerned. So far as these areas go no considerable burden has been thrown on them as a result of the Act of 1929.
When discussing the Act of 1929 I said that I hoped the Act would run for two years instead of one. I think I asked to have the Act an Act that would run for two years instead of one. I simply surrendered to the opinion of the House in making it one year. I said that before the expiry of that Act I hoped to have a Consolidated Poor Assistance Act. I have not been able to produce that Bill and I now have definitely given up the intention and hope of introducing such a Bill before the next General Election. I do not think that the work that is involved in it from the Department point of view or from the point of view of the Dáil could, satisfactorily, be done between this time and the next General Election.