Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 May 1929

Vol. 12 No. 7

Public Business. - Unemployment and Home Assistance.

Debate resumed on the following motion in the name of Senator Alfred Byrne:
"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."

I move as an amendment:—

To add at the end of the motion the words:

"and that it is expedient that a Special Committee consisting of seven Senators, of whom four shall form a quorum, be appointed to consider and report whether any legal disability exists to prevent the Commissioners acting as Guardians of the Poor in Dublin from giving adequate relief to persons who are in need or distress through unemployment, or incapacitated through sickness or accident, or to the families of such persons, or to necessitous widows with dependent children."

I do not think it is necessary at all to deal with the evil that was discussed on the previous occasion, or with the difficulties or problems that were outlined by Senator Byrne and supplemented by other speakers. It will be remembered that the motion, as moved by Senator Byrne and seconded by Senator Sir Edward Bigger, was supported by other Senators representing different sides of this House. There was, it seemed to me, agreement that some practical steps should be taken to find out whether any difficulty of a legal kind existed to prevent these evils that were complained of being dealt with. We have not, I think, the duty imposed on us to deal with the administration of affairs, but we have a duty imposed on us in respect of the state of the law in such things as this covers, and it is, therefore, my duty to ask the House to approve that the House should make some inquiry as to what it is, that prevents the evils, of which complaints are made, being remedied. It is believed that the state of the law is such that it deprives the Commissioners of the power to do what they would like to do. Whether that is so or not may be questioned, but at any rate it is desirable that the House should be made aware of the facts in regard to this matter, and that it should endeavour to bring about such an amendment as is necessary if it is a question of amending the law. I think Senator Byrne is willing to accept my amendment as an addendum to his motion, and I ask the House to approve.

I formally second the amendment.

I do not want to offer any opinion as to the merits of this proposal. I desire to ask the proposer of the amendment in what way this Committee would operate. Would it have power to call official witnesses, such as witnesses from the Department, or would it depend upon voluntary evidence, and if so, from what source would that evidence be extracted? I think you could get a Committee to operate that would secure authentic evidence on these matters, and that a useful public purpose would be served. I approve of the proposal, but I want to know if Senator Johnson could give us any indication as to what the position of the Committee, when set up, would be, whether it would have any power to call witnesses, or by what means it would carry out its operations.

There may be some question as to what the powers are, when using that word in a literal sense. When I speak of powers I mean the powers of compelling. I do not think there would be any necessity to exercise such powers, but I think it will be quite within the competence of that Committee to call witnesses and its request would be acceeded to by any officials who might be called into question. I have no hesitation in saying that the Commissioners concerned would be very willing to give any information that is necessary to the Committee on this question. I think also the Department of Local Government will be quite willing to assist the Committee, also any other authorities or persons who might be called in to give assistance.

What occurs to me is: the question involved in Senator Johnson's amendment is apparently a very serious legal question. A Committee of seven members of this House is not the best kind of tribunal to decide the question of law. Is it suggested that they should be addressed by counsel? Surely a question of law ought to be decided in some way in which law can be decided, either by the opinion of the Attorney-General or counsel. A Committee of seven of this House is not the kind of Committee to do this work. I may say that I am entirely in sympathy with anything that can be done to get rid of the awful distress which I know is prevalent in the city.

If the word "legal" before "disability" were removed the amendment would still cover what it is intended to cover and would remove Senator Brown's objection. With regard to the Senator's point, Committees have been set up not composed of legal people primarily to consider questions that involved changes of law. The Liquor Commission set up to inquire into the administration of the poor law was not composed of lawyers, so that I think it is quite competent for a Committee of the House to inquire into a matter in which legal difficulties or disabilities may be involved without its being necessarily a purely legal Committee. One or two legal members of this House might be appointed on it. Certainly if the House would do a work of the kind specified in the amendment it would be an exceedingly meritorious work, and one that, I think, would commend itself to everybody concerned.

Motion put and declared carried, with one dissentient.

The original motion, as amended, was then put and declared carried unanimously.

The Seanad adjourned at 5.5 p.m. until Wednesday, 8th May.

Top
Share