On behalf of Deputy Good I move: "In line 20, to delete the figures 1936 and substitute the figures 1933." On the Second Reading debate it was urged from a good many quarters that the temporary character of this Bill should be maintained. It was introduced admittedly as a temporary measure. The original draft suggests that this Bill should last for a period of five years. The effect of this amendment is to reduce the period to two years. I am strongly of opinion that the Dáil should not lose the opportunity of reconsidering the whole question of relief within a period of two years. There is a difference of opinion and considerable doubt, at any rate, as to whether the incidence of the cost of administering this Relief Bill fairly falls on the city. I would strongly urge the Minister to agree to take the Bill for two years, and to give the Dáil an opportunity after that period to go into the whole matter.
Poor Relief (Dublin) Bill, 1931—Committee Stage.
I would ask the Minister to consider favourably the amendment before the House. I agree with Deputy Thrift that when this Bill was introduced originally we were told it was going to be of a temporary character. This Bill proposes to extend the original measure for another five years. In my opinion, if that is agreed to, the consideration of the main problem that is behind this Bill is going to be shelved. Nothing will be done. If money is to be voted for the relief of the poor of the city, I think there ought to be an investigation as to how it can be spent more profitably than it is at present.
Deputy Good, on the Second Reading of the Bill, referred to the incidence of cost, and expressed the opinion that it does not fall fairly on the Dublin ratepayers. Speaking from experience, I can say that the cost of this Bill does not fall fairly. Take the case of a professional man living in a private residence, with a rateable valuation of £20 or £25, and a business man with an establishment in Talbot Street, Henry Street, or Grafton Street. The latter will have to pay four times as much as the professional man as regards the charges under this Bill. It is well known that the trade and commerce of this city is passing through a difficult time. Therefore, it would be most unwise to place a Bill of this character on the Statute Book for five years without giving the question involved in it further consideration. The demand of the North Dublin Union on the area now comprising the city amounts to £307,306 for the coming year. That means that, without any further examination of the question, this dead weight of expenditure is to be placed mainly on the trading and industrial community of this city for the next five years.
Surely the Deputy does not suggest that the relief that is being provided under this measure is going to cost the city of Dublin £307,306 this year?
Mr. Byrne
That is the amount of the demand from the North Dublin Union for the coming year. I have not segregated the different items which make up that demand. The Minister must know that, taking the minimum figure, this Bill will place a dead weight of at least £125,000 a year on the ratepayers of Dublin during the period of its operation. That is a charge that they can ill-afford to bear at the moment. I feel the Minister cannot take up the position that the Government have no other duty than to pass a Bill of this kind and leave the matter there. I think some share of the burden should, in equity, be borne by the State. That is my opinion. It may not meet with agreement in all parts of the House. Speaking on behalf of the city, I feel bound to say that in my opinion the city of Dublin is being treated inequitably in this matter. If the attitude of the Government be that the passage of this Bill will relieve them of all further responsibility and duty in this matter, then I say speaking from the Government Benches, that I could not possibly agree with that.
People must face up to the fact that there is an abnormal situation to be dealt with in Dublin, which is the storm-centre of the unemployment problem in this country. In view of that, and realising all that has been done by the Governments of other countries to lighten the burden on trade and industry during abnormal periods, I think it is incumbent on our Government to face up to this problem as other countries have done. I think that something more is required from the Government than merely to pass this Bill and then, Pontius Pilate-like, wipe their hands and leave the thing there. A large party in this House claim that it is the duty of the State to find work for every one of its citizens. I do not accept that proposition, but I do think that some liability rests on——
Would not the discussion on that proposition be somewhat far from the amendment?
Mr. Byrne
It is difficult to deal with a subject that has such wide ramifications without making a passing reference to certain claims that have been put forward from time to time, but I do suggest that the State had a bigger liability in this matter than merely to pass a Bill. One of the objects of the Shannon Scheme was to relieve unemployment. If the citizens of Dublin are to be asked to bear the whole of the burden that is caused by unemployment, then I say they are not able to bear it. It is all very well to haggle about the amount, but the total demand on the citizens of Dublin for the coming year in respect of the North Dublin Union is £307,000 odd. That represents an increase, as compared with the previous year, of nearly £125,000. If the Government could provide relief schemes on which that sum of money could be employed in a reproductive manner, thereby giving relief to the citizens to that extent, I would be whole-heartedly behind them. Speaking from these benches, I ask the Minister, before this Bill is passed for a period of five years, to have a closer examination than has yet been made of this whole question.
The amendment proposes that this Bill which applies to Dublin should only remain in operation for two years. Other local authorities have to bear these charges without any limit of time. I would like to hear either from Deputy Thrift or Deputy Byrne as to why Dublin should be treated differently to all other local bodies.
I can answer the Deputy. People from the provinces are coming to Dublin every other day and are taking work, so to speak, out of the mouths of Dublin men who, in consequence, are unable to find work and have to go on the rates.
Mr. O'Connell
That argument has already been effectively answered by the figures given by the Minister. I have always held the contrary view to that expressed by Deputy Byrne. The figures given by the Minister do not bear out the Deputy's statement. There may be a case for an examination into the whole incidence of the burden, whether it should be borne by the ratepayers entirely or partly from the rates and partly from State sources. But that does not apply any more to Dublin than it does to Cork, Waterford, Limerick, Mayo or any other county. I do not think anything would be gained by passing the amendment and having this discussion all ever again, with special reference to Dublin only. If we are going to have a discussion on this particular problem, then let it concern itself with the country as a whole. I have heard no argument, so far, as to why this should be a temporary measure, or as to why Dublin should be specially treated as against the country as a whole.
It seems to me that Deputy O'Connell wants to revive the Second Reading debate on this Bill.
I think that Deputy O'Connell in what he said was completely relevant to the amendment.
It may be quite true that the consideration of the question, so far as it affects the city, would involve the consideration of this question generally. My point in moving the amendment was that its acceptance provided a lever for bringing up this whole question again in two years, whereas if the Bill is passed for five years the House loses that lever. It was urged, when this measure was introduced, that it was only brought in in a temporary way, until such time as the whole question would be considered.
We are now asked to put that off for five years. I contend that the question does require examination: whether this is a cost which should be borne by the State or treated in some other manner, whether, in fact, as Deputy Byrne said, the money could not be more profitably expended. I sincerely hope the House will see the wisdom of not postponing for a longer period than two years the time when that whole question will be considered.
Surely Deputy Thrift does not want us to think that there is no other way of raising this question than by means of a Bill like this coming before us two years hence?
No, but in this particular way it will come up in two years.
There is no doubt that we will get ways and means of bringing this matter up and bringing it up in a way which will give us an opportunity of dealing with it for the country as a whole and not merely for Dublin. I was listening carefully and wondering whether any sound argument could be put forward for shortening the period. I have heard none. I agree with Deputy O'Connell. I think that no case whatever has been made for the amendment. The provision in the Bill is putting Dublin in exactly the same position as the rest of the country, and whatever considerations may impel us to seek to have this whole question brought up will apply to the rest of the country as well as to Dublin. There is no doubt whatever that we will have an opportunity of raising the matter.
On the question of acceptance or otherwise of this amendment, Deputies will remember that I more or less undertook to Deputy Good to consider this question of shortening the period to 1933. I entirely agree with Deputy O'Connell that no good purpose is served by arranging for annual discussions on this matter here when further discussion can be of no practical use. When this matter was discussed here in 1929, considerable fear was expressed and we made this a Bill simply extending to the 31st March of this particular year. I do not think it really would be necessary for the House to divide on this amendment. I suggest that we take the amendment that is down. If necessary, the Bill can be included in an Expiring Laws Bill of the particular year that is involved, if we have not got rid of such a thing as an Expiring Laws Bill by that time.
On the question of this being a temporary Bill, I think we must get out of our heads that there is anything in this Bill bringing Dublin to the same position as the rest of the country in the matter of outdoor relief to the able-bodied that is in any way temporary. The Bill has brought Dublin definitely into the same position as the rest of the country in that particular matter and it was temporary only because we had hoped that inside the city and county of Dublin the local bodies concerned would agree to a joint scheme and because it related to a temporary Act originally—the Act of 1923. The amendment, from my point of view, does bring us over to a new Parliament and that new Parliament can deal with the matter any way it wishes. I cannot see the slightest use to Dublin or anywhere else in having a discussion on this particular point in this assembly.
The question is raised as to whether the incidence of this type of relief falls fairly on Dublin. The people who are dealing with the administration of this particular type of relief in Dublin are the persons best fitted and best positioned to examine it and we cannot examine the question here without examining at the same time whether the incidence of this particular class of relief falls fairly on Cork, Limerick, Kildare, Galway, or any other place, so that as far as the unfairness of the incidence is concerned the Executive Council are certainly not going to initiate any inquiry into that any more than they are going to initiate an inquiry as to whether there is a vast influx into the City of Dublin of people who ought not to go into it. Reference to table 10 of the census returns will show that there are more non-county Dublin born persons in Dublin and more non-county Wicklow persons in Wicklow and more non-county Meath persons in Meath than there are non-City of Dublin born persons in the City of Dublin.
Mr. O'Connell
We would have to think that over.
I drew attention to that matter when we were discussing the Bill in 1929.
Mr. Byrne
Country places are small as compared with Dublin.
I am speaking of percentages. I am sorry if I do not make that clear. If it is agreed that what we want is not again to discuss this particular type of Bill in respect to this particular type of relief in Dublin in the life of this Parliament, the amendment meets me. I would be more satisfied in ordinary circumstances to get the five years but I am satisfied with the amendment.
You can get the five years if you want to.
I would suggest that Deputies ought not to press that in view of the fact that there are people of anxious dispositions in the House.
Are we to take it that the Minister is accepting this amendment?
I suggested that I would accept this amendment when dealing with the Second Reading of the Bill. I have no objection to the House expressing its own wishes on the matter, but, in view of the anxious minds in the House, and the shadows which people are afraid of, we are not prepared to press the matter to a division.
If I were anxious to support the amendment I would have adduced a more important argument than that put to the House by Deputy Thrift and Deputy Byrne. I would have brought in the cover of the last issue of "Dublin Opinion," showing the rush of Cork men to Dublin to get jobs at the time of the Treaty.
That would be an argument against it.
I would like the Minister to have stated that this class of relief would be a permanent measure to meet certain depressions and temporary difficulties, but that he himself had expectations that the amount of relief which would have to be given in this country would diminish year by year. I think the Minister should oppose the shortening of the period. I think five years means nothing and two years means nothing. We will have the whole thing over again. What I was hoping was that, even if we had this Bill on the stocks, the time might come when there would not be such extreme poverty as we have at the present moment. It is all very well for Deputy Byrne to talk of people from outside Dublin coming here to get relief. I wonder when he was down in Roscommon during the week-end did he tell the people there that they ought not to get relief in Dublin.
Mr. Byrne
They can get relief, if stranded, in the city.
I understood that the opposition to this five year period all through was that there was a danger of people who were not born in Dublin getting relief at the expense of the Dublin ratepayers. I understand that that is still the objection.
The majority of the ratepayers are not Dublin born.
I understand that there is a clause in the Act which states that a person must be two years resident in Dublin before he can apply for relief. Does Deputy Byrne suggest that there is a danger of people coming from neighbouring counties and taking up residence in Dublin for two years, with nothing to live upon, in the hope that they will qualify for relief—a miserable pittance—at the end of that period? I hope that the Minister will not accept this amendment, and that the new provision will be left as it is— five years.
As I indicated already, we came here with open minds on this point and we were prepared to listen to any arguments that could be put forward for shortening the period. We have heard none whatever. It seems to me that what is involved here is the question whether Dublin should or should not be treated differently in respect to this particular matter from the rest of the country. Our view is that Dublin ought not to be treated differently. The only matter I feel doubtful about is whether or not we should have 1936 or any period mentioned. The excuse that has been put forward for shortening the period to 1933 is that we will have an opportunity of bringing the question forward. The Minister's giving way to what he thinks are fears on this question seems to be ridiculous. I have seen the Minister stand by the position he took up on a Bill where there was far less excuse for his doing so than there is at present. I, for one, until a case has been made for the change—and no case has been made—will not agree to the amendment. We shall have to vote against it. We see no excuse whatever for it. The Bill simply puts Dublin in the same position as the rest of the country. My view is that that ought to be done permanently. If there is any question of undue pressure or of unfair incidence of the rate, let there be a general examination. I think that the Minister already said that he was going to bring in a Bill to deal with the matter as a whole. Is not that so?
That is so.
Then the whole question of shortening the period will come up and the House will have an opportunity of dealing with it.
I would say this to Deputy Thrift: This Bill will have to be repeated in this particular way in 1933 because the general legislation that it will have to be fitted into will not be prepared until that time.
I must press my opposition to this amendment. As Deputy de Valera has pointed out. there has been no argument in favour of it. The Minister has stated quite definitely that he is carrying the matter over to another Parliament, but he has admitted that another Parliament can do nothing else but pass this measure. I do not see why we should put another Parliament—on whatever side of the House members may then be sitting—to the trouble of raising this matter if the position will be that they can do nothing except what is being done here. The Minister referred to the anxiety of some people but I suggest that his action in accepting this amendment will only increase their anxiety because it will lend colour to the view, present to the minds of people like Deputy Byrne and others, that Dublin is in a different position from the rest of the country. That view we cannot agree with. If the Minister accepts that view, it will only increase anxiety in the minds of the people. I am in agreement with Deputy de Valera when he says that there should be no limit in the Bill— 1936 or any other time. The acceptance of the amendment will not improve matters and I will oppose it.
I am surprised at the reception of this amendment. From all sides of the House, I thought that the idea of this amendment rather got support. I cannot understand why Deputies who desire that a particular thing should happen will not take every conceivable step to ensure that it will happen. In my argument in support of the amendment, I did not say a single word—I was quite careful about it— about Dublin. I want this whole question to be considered. I think that Deputies on other sides of the House desire that the whole question should be considered. I cannot convince myself that the present system of administering poor law relief, either in town or country, is a rational one or the best that can be found. Personally, I think that it is an extremely bad one. By making this measure last for two years, we would ensure that the question would be considered in its entirety and dealt with and the new Parliament could not have a better subject to start its labours on. I appeal to Deputies to accept this amendment. It will do no harm to limit the period to two years and they can take every measure that can be devised meanwhile to get the big problem attended to. I think this is one of the most urgent things we have to deal with. I think we have got a very bad system, generally, of poor law relief. I do not refer particularly to Dublin. I refer to the system throughout the country and I ask Deputies to agree to that short period, comparatively speaking, and not to assist in having the matter shelved, more or less. Deputies know how things can be shelved when the opportunity offers. If this five-year limit remains, they know that the result will be that the matter will be put off and not dealt with in five years.
I must certainly say that I cannot accept this amendment on the grounds on which Deputy Thrift now puts it forward. He is quite wrong in urging that this Parliament, with a small period of life before it, should push itself into the position of having to review the entire relief system of the country or that it should leave such a state of affairs as would compel the new Parliament, immediately on its taking office, to consider this whole matter. From his last statement, I think that Deputy Thrift's outlook is quite wrong.
Make it 1934.
We cannot admit, and do not admit, that we have a bad system of poor law relief in this country. We say to the people who are criticising us and who want to have it replaced, whether they are on the Fianna Fáil Benches or on the Labour Benches, that they will never replace it by a better system.
Wait and see.
I do not believe that you will ever destroy the present system and replace it. You may add something to it, but you will injure the poor in this country if you take away the present system of poor relief.
Every eye forms its own beauty.
On Deputy Thrift's last point, he has made no case to the House for the acceptance of the amendment.
Deputy Thrift has made an appeal to the House to accept this amendment. I have been listening to this rather interesting debate from its inception and I should like to appeal to Deputy Thrift to withdraw the amendment that he moved. If he does not withdraw his amendment, it looks as if the amendment will be put to a division and, if it is put to a division, it looks as if the Minister will have to vote for it. The House will, I think, agree with me that nothing the Minister has said has been in favour of the amendment. I do appeal to Deputy Thrift, in fairness to the Minister, not to force him into the invidious position in which he would have to vote for an amendment which he has not supported by a single argument and which I believe he thinks should not be incorporated in the Bill.
The full expression of Deputy Thrift's mind on this matter disclosed such a position that I could not possibly vote for the amendment.
I had better withdraw the amendment although I have no authority to do so.