I beg to move:—
"That in the opinion of the Seanad the existing provision for the relief of unemployment is inadequate and the method of administering home assistance to the wives and families of the unemployed and those in distress calls for investigation without delay."
The matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is causing grave anxiety to people outside who are aware of the appalling conditions that exist in quarters where unemployment is most prevalent. People are asking how are the unemployed who are not entitled to unemployment benefit and who have no other means of livelihood existing. I am aware that there are to-day families of four or five children where the father is strong and healthy and has been unemployed for a period of two years. In such cases simply because the father is healthy, the poor law system, as it is at present being administered, deprives the wife and children of such a man of even one shilling home assistance. If anybody thinks that I am exaggerating my case I will produce not one individual case, but hundreds of cases. I could at the moment give hundreds of such cases to the House but that is not desirable. If any person thinks I am exaggerating I will ask such person to-morrow morning, or any morning next week, to visit between 7 and 8 o'clock in the morning the convents in our city, notably the Gardiner Street Convent and the Harold's Cross Convent. There women with large families, and who in some cases that were brought to my notice were expecting additions to their families, may be seen waiting in a queue to receive a free loaf and a can of tea from Sister Pauline. Sister Pauline is a good lady whom I have never met. If Senators are not satisfied with what they will see at Gardiner Street Convent I will ask them to go to Harold's Cross.
Can it be said that people who will wait in a queue for a free loaf to bring home to their children are undeserving? Has any Relieving Officer the right to say to these people: "We have no means at our disposal to give you relief outside the workhouse?" Is it right or just in this Christian country that any public official should tell a poor person: "Yourself and your husband and family can go into the workhouse and we will assist you there?" I am told that unfortunately the conditions inside the workhouse are not what they might be in this country. Poor persons are appalled at the idea of going there and sooner than do so they will adopt any methods.
I have known one case where an ex-member of the National Army, who spent five to six years in the service, who is suffering from tuberculosis and who has four children to rear, was under notice to quit. He buttoned up the collar of his coat and, in the hope that nobody would know him, he went to the outskirts of the City and tried to collect from door to door a sufficient amount to pay the landlord a little of the rent and so prevent an eviction. It is many years ago since I heard the workhouse system condemned. We have ways and means of providing our own system now. I will say unhesitatingly that the conditions and the methods of dealing with the poor to-day in Dublin are worse than at any time heretofore. And what is it all about? It is all about a wild clamour to reduce the rates. Unfortunately I do not think that those who make that clamour know exactly what the result of the clamour is. Reduce the rates! When there is no other rate to be reduced, with a stroke of the pen the sum of 8d. in the £ is taken off the poor rate in the City of Dublin. I wonder do those who make that reduction in the poor rate to please people who are probably struggling in business but who at least have three meals a day, know what the taking of the 8d. in the £ really means? Do they know that it means semi-starvation for hundreds in the slums of Dublin? The words are not mine. I have a greater authority. Some six weeks ago there was an outbreak of fever in Dublin, fortunately very mild. The Chief Medical Officer of Health in the City, Dr. Russell, issued a warning through the newspapers for the closing of the schools and, in an interview, he said that what was likely to encourage the spread of 'flu in the City of Dublin was the condition of the poor and their state of semi-starvation. The words "semi-starvation" were used by Dr. Russell. Shortly afterwards I read in the newspapers a report issued by those who are dealing with poor law relief. Unfortunately I am not at the moment able to give the details of that report or of various cases because I have not just now the originals or copies of statements that I sent to various Departments in the hope that something would be done to alleviate distress. At the moment I am without actual details of cases.
As regards the poor law system as it is to-day, I would ask Senators to visualise a map of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Let them imagine a little dot upon what is known as the city of Dublin—not the outskirts, but the city proper between the old bridges. That is the only spot on the map where home assistance is not administered as it should be, and where there are thousands of unemployed. We are living in a Christian country, and yet we have those desperate conditions in our midst. Are the comfortable classes going to stand over what is happening within a stone's throw of the principal thoroughfares of the city? This morning I had the case of a young man 22 or 23 years of age. I questioned him with a view to getting relief for him in some way. He told me he was married and had two children. I asked him where he was living, and he said: "Mr. Byrne, my wife is gone back to her mother and she brought one child, and I am going back to my mother and I am bringing the other child. I would not apply to you for relief of any kind, or any assistance if it was not for the fact that my wife's father, who was helping to contribute to the support of the children, is now unemployed." I will give particulars of that case to any Senator who may like to investigate it. That young wife, with her child, will go back to one room in a tenement and the young husband will go back with the second child to another room in another tenement.
I do not want to arouse only sympathy or pity by putting these cases before you. I would ask something more. I would ask this House by resolution to demand that an investigation should take place. I do not want that investigation to be held by those in charge of the administration of relief at present. I would ask that two or three members of this House, or two or three members of the Dáil, devote half an hour a day to the investigation of these cases and see for themselves whether there is any justification for my statement here. I would be satisfied if that were done. A good day's work would be done by doing that— good work for the country as well as for the unfortunate poor. I cannot understand why Section 13 in full has not been put into operation in the City of Dublin. Is the House aware that work that should be provided and food that should be given as a right to these people is now being given through a different channel, and that the thing has now got so bad that the St. Vincent de Paul Society and the Roomkeepers' Society reported that in the last month they had paid 29,000 visits to poor people? Twenty-nine thousand people have been thrown on charitable institutions who, in my view, should be maintained by the country as a whole.
The St. Vincent de Paul Society has run out of funds, and I am aware that some Department—Poor Law Commissioners or the Local Government Department—and the St. Vincent de Paul Society, are working hand in hand, and that the St. Vincent de Paul Society have found themselves in such a position that they had to approach the authorities for funds to help them in their good work. If these people are deserving of help from the Government, and if some public fund is helping a charitable institution to look after the poor, why not do it boldly? There are men and women who are proud enough not to apply to a charitable institution for relief but who, if they thought they could get a 10/- or 12/6 ticket as a right from the State, would, under all the circumstances, but not of their own choice, accept that assistance if they got it.
In another place I have been accused of exaggerating the conditions in Dublin and, in order to get away from that accusation, I would ask two or three members of this House to kindly form a Committee and investigate the matter for themselves. There is no responsible Minister here. I am satisfied that the Minister and those in charge could give some apparently reasonable excuse for the delay. To get back to a point to which I intended to refer in justification of my case, I should mention that the Inspector of Dispensaries made a report a month ago—as a result, I am satisfied, of pressure brought by members of the Dáil and Seanad who take an interest in the matter—to the effect that in four dispensary districts of one portion of Dublin exceptional circumstances existed which warranted an increase of £40 a week in one dispensary, £80 in another and between the four it amounted to £220 a week. When I saw that I said: "Thank God, an effort is going to be made to deal with the problem."
To my horror, however, I read ten days afterwards another report from the same authority and they proceeded to make provision in the coming year's estimate just the same as for the year gone out, but they did not mention one word about the officer's report ten days previously in which he said that exceptional circumstances existed warranting an extra expenditure of £200 a week. As I say, no provision has been made in the coming year for that extra expenditure. If his report is true, and I am satisfied it is, and that exceptional circumstances do exist why do they not make that provision? Do they hope to get that £200 a week through some other channel or do they try to put their responsibility on to the charitable institutions and the public? At this point I may observe that the country ought to be grateful for its charitable public in Dublin because there are many subscriptions going into those channels of which nobody is aware. That should not be. Messrs So-and-so or some kind individual should not be subscribing £10, £20, or £50 if his neighbour next door will subscribe nothing. I say that his neighbour next door should be compelled to pay to the poor rate and so spread the charge over the whole area. I hope that the House will pass the motion. I regret that the Minister is not here to explain the position. I am aware that the President, the Minister for Local Government and their officials have had frequent discussions on the matter and I am satisfied that their hands would be strengthened if the House passes this resolution.
