Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Dec 1929

Vol. 13 No. 6

Poor Relief (Dublin) Bill, 1929—Second Stage.

Question proposed: That the Poor Relief (Dublin) Bill be read a second time.

Mr. Johnson

This Bill is intended to replace the Bill which was sent from the Seanad to the Dail. In my opinion it is a much worse Bill than the Bill which was passed by the Seanad, and it will in fact, in my view, be very difficult to consent to its adoption in its present form. I realise that there is a certain risk in not passing the Bill, but, frankly, I am very doubtful whether it would not be more beneficial to risk the non-passing of the Bill than to pass it without amendment. So far from merely doing what the Seanad decided upon doing, that is to say, to bring the city and county of Dublin into line with the rest of the country in respect to the legality of relief for able-bodied persons outside workhouses, the Bill re-enacts in specific terms some of the most obnoxious provisions of the old poor law. Those of us who have been interested in this question will remember that there was a Commission set up in 1906, of which a Senator, Sir Edward Bigger, was a member. That Commission made special reference in its report to the work of an earlier Commission, an Irish Commission set up and consisting mainly of Irishmen in 1836, and which clearly reported in a direction which was a contrary to the prevailing view regarding the poor law in England, and contrasted in its report between the state of things in England which the English poor law was adopted to remedy and the state of things in Ireland. The Irish Commission reported quite clearly in specific terms that the conditions were very different, and implied in its report that the law which might be considered to be requisite in England at that time was not applicable to Ireland, but the Government of the time decided in favour of applying the English poor law system to Irish conditions, and passed a Bill in 1838 adopting the English poor law system for Ireland quite in the face of every exponent of what was desirable and necessary, and in the teeth of the recommendations of the Irish Commission. Some of the provisions of that obnoxious Poor Law Act, which everyone interested in poor law reform in this country has denounced, have been inserted in this Bill.

I take special exception to the reintroduction of the words "destitute poor person." In Section 2 boards of guardians may relieve outside the workhouses any destitute poor person who could not heretofore have been relieved by them. I think it is true to say that there has been, even before the adoption of the county schemes, a gradual getting away from the insistence upon destitution as a condition of relief. Under the Medical Charities Act in practice throughout the country, but not everywhere to the same degree, insistance upon destitution has not been made necessary. We are now asked in this Bill to re-enact in specific terms the obnoxious words "destitute poor person." What is the effect of that? It is that the relieving officer, whatever he may have done in the past for the relief of persons who are not destitute, must now see—for the Dáil and Seanad have re-enacted it—that destitution must be a condition of relief, which may mean in practice that the man or woman who has a few sticks of furniture in the house or a few pictures will have to sell them, if they are saleable, before he can get relief. It was the practice for many long years that a person who had any saleable goods could not receive poor law relief. We are asked in this Act to re-enact these very words, which is an indication to the relieving officer that unless he can satisfy himself the applicant for relief is destitute he may legally refuse to give relief. I think that is a great blot in the Bill. I hope the Minister will embody in the Bill such amendments as will bring the law in Dublin into line with the rest of the country, that is to say, that a person eligible for relief would be a person who is unable by his own industry or other lawful means to provide for himself and his dependents the necessaries of life, or medical or surgical treatment. That is a very great difference, and unless the Minister tells me in so many words that this Bill cannot become law this year unless it is enacted without amendment I shall certainly attempt to amend it in the direction I have indicated.

I think that Section 4 is dangerous, and may be used in a sense which is not intended by the Bill. It enables boards of guardians to use the poor law for purposes which are no doubt not intended by the Bill, but would be distinctly obnoxious to the general community—I mean that where a board of guardians is empowered to enter into any work of public utility on behalf of any person or public authority, the board may become public contractors employing persons in receipt of relief to do work of any kind for anybody, provided that it can be brought within the term of "public utility." A public utility is not defined. There is a very wide range of operations which may come under that term, "public utility," which, if the guardians were to enter upon, would well be treated as being in competition with private industry, and in fact merely be the substitution of a man who was out for a man who was in, not relieving employment to any extent and not touching the problem.

In fact, Section 4, to my mind, appears to be an attempt to tackle the problem of unemployment from the standpoint of poor law, which is an entirely wrong way to tackle the problem. There has been a good deal of agitation on other aspects of this Bill as far as it affects Dublin, and I must say that the agitation sounds very false and empty to me. I have had, as I presume every other Senator has had, this morning a circular letter containing certain provisions of what the circular states is an agreed Bill passing through the British Parliament in regard to settlement—the transfer of persons from one part of the country to their native place. It would appear from the circular issued from the Chamber of Commerce that this is some new proposal which has been generally agreed upon in England, and, therefore, should be accepted in Ireland, but the authors of the circular do not appear to appreciate the fact that the Bill that is now being discussed by a Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords is a Bill for consolidating the existing Acts. It is for the exclusive purpose of the consolidation of the existing Acts of Parliament. This consolidation process is merely preparatory to the introduction of new legislation. What the Chamber of Commerce seeks to suggest as something new is merely, in fact, re-enacting in a consolidated form what has been the practice in England and Wales for probably 60 or 70 years.

In any case, conditions in England and Wales are very different indeed from conditions in this country and the provisions regarding settlement in England are clearly intended to deal with vagrants. The problem we are dealing with is not the problem of vagrancy. It is the problem of men who would normally be working if employment were available, but who owing to continuous disability arising from unemployment, are unable to maintain themselves and their families in decency, and in respect of the other Section—the sick, the disabled and the unfit—we desire that they should be relieved outside the workhouse where they can be—and they usually can—more cheaply relieved than inside the institution. This is not a problem of vagrancy at all and, therefore, the circular of the Chamber of Commerce has really no effect with regard to conditions in this country. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurances that he is prepared to modify the form of this Bill in respect of this question of destitution, and also that he will agree to insert in the Bill, if he can give us some assurance that it is likely to be considered by the Dáil, that no person eligible for relief shall be relieved in any institution provided or maintained by the Board of Guardians, unless he can be relieved effectively in such institution at less cost than in any other lawful way. Both these provisions that I have spoken of are already the law in every other part of the country except Dublin county and city, and inasmuch as they have been embodied in every scheme for the rest of the country I think they may reasonably be embodied in this Bill, so long as there is an intention to enlarge on the simple proposition contained in the Bill sent from the Seanad to the Dáil. Having extended to some extent the proposals of the Seanad Bill I am hopeful that the Minister will agree, at least, to embody these two portions of the general scheme of Poor Law in the Bill which is to apply to Dublin.

Mr. Brown

Unfortunately this is a necessary Bill and I think the question that this House will have to consider is to what extent, if any, are we justified in inserting any amendments. With reference to the point that Senator Johnson made about the description of the persons who are to be eligible for relief under this Bill, I am afraid both he and I, and other Senators who backed the small Bill in the Seanad before the Recess are guilty of the very same crime of restriction as there is in this Bill, because when we come back to the Bill which was introduced by Senator Johnson and backed by Senator Sir Edward Bigger and others we find that the persons who were described as the persons who were to be entitled to outdoor relief under that Bill are the persons who were eligible for it, that is, eligible for it under the then existing law for relieving poor persons.

Mr. Johnson

I would ask the Senator to realise that there has been a usage to get away from the destitution that has been recommended specifically in these words.

Mr. Brown

I agree, but as a matter of strict definition the Senator is only partly responsible for it. I admit my own share of responsibility. I join with Senator Johnson very cordially in hoping that the Minister will alter the definition in this Bill, not only for the purpose of getting rid of the rather unpleasant nature of the definition, but also for the purpose of extending it in a proper and legitimate way to persons who are entitled to relief. I do not know whether the definition as given by Senator Johnson would satisfy the Minister or not, but some definition can be got which will take away from this Bill the unpleasant reference to the destitute poor. The House will remember the object of the short Bill which was introduced last June which passed through this House and was held up in the Dáil. The object of that Bill was to render legal in the Dublin Union what had been done illegally by the Poor Law Commissioners who were giving outdoor relief. They had been doing this for some time and had been expending very large sums of money. I have forgotten the exact sum, but it ran into something like £90,000.

General Mulcahy

Oh. no. The amount disallowed by the auditor up to 31st March of this year was £8,000 odd.

Mr. Brown

I thought it was very much more than that. Of course, that is what was surcharged by the auditor.

General Mulcahy

He surcharged everything.

Mr. Johnson

Up to what date was that audit?

General Mulcahy

I think the 31st March of this year. I will be able to supply the date later.

Mr. Brown

At any rate that was the object of the Bill, to render legal —a perfectly justifiable thing owing to the necessity of the case—the expenditure incurred by the Commissioners in granting outdoor relief to persons not strictly entitled to get it because they were not in the Union. That was quite right, and it went as far as we thought it was then necessary to go. The present Bill goes far and away beyond that. How far it goes, if no limit is put on the amount which can be expended under the Bill, nobody can say. I think the real question for this House when considering this Bill in Committee will be: "Should we put any limit on the expenditure which can be made by the Commissioners, and if so, what should that limit be," or are we going to give absolute carte blanche to the Commissioners for expenditure on relief? The Bill is only a temporary one and comes to an end in March, 1931. It covers one year or a little more. It is a temporary Bill, with a promise by the Minister that the question will be reconsidered at the end of that time, and that probably permanent legislation will then be considered. To my mind, that makes it all the more advisable that there should be some limit to the expenditure. This is an experiment. We know that there is an absolute necessity for the Bill. These unfortunate people must be relieved. But are we justified in not putting some limit to that relief? Let us see, by putting some reasonable limit in this Bill, how the Commissioners will work under a Bill with a limit for this short trial between this and March, 1931, and having tried the experiment we would know whether it would be right to give the Commissioners or the poor law guardians in the future a perfectly free hand in the matter of outdoor relief, or whether it will be necessary to put into permanent legislation a limit to be put on them by the Minister which they could not exceed without the consent of the Minister. He would then be able to look into the peculiar circumstances of the time and grant permission to go beyond the limit. But whether it is temporary in this legislation, which we are dealing with now, or in the permanent legislation which will be dealt with hereafter, in my opinion there ought to be some limit to the amount of rate which the Commissioners or the poor law guardians will be entitled to spend for the purpose of outdoor relief.

Mr. Comyn

There is a limit in this Bill, a very strict and a very rigid limit, and the limitation is contained in the word "destitution." No person is to be relieved unless he is a destitute poor person. The speech of Senator Brown seems to be contradictory, because on the one hand he wants an extension of that defination and, on the other hand, he wants to dry up the sources of supply.

Mr. Brown

Certainly not. I said a reasonable limit.

Mr. Comyn

A reasonable limit fixed by the amount of the rate or a reasonable limit fixed by the state of destitution? I am in favour of a reasonable limit being fixed by the state of destitution of the poor, and no other limit, because the destitute poor have, and always have had, first charge on the resources of a particular area. That is not new law; it is old law. In regard to the defination of destitution, I think the statement of Senator Johnson rather confined the meaning too much. I think that destitution is arrived at long before the bed is sold. However, if there are any doubts on that point, I would urge the Minister, if it is feasible at the moment, to have such a defination as will sanction the practice already adopted, if that is possible. If it is not possible, I think the word "destitution" itself is capable of a more liberal construction, and I am sure the officials will give it that liberal construction.

There was another point in the speech of Senator Johnson that alarmed me at first—namely, that it seemed to the Senator that there was some possibility that under this Bill work would be given which would put men now in employment out of employment. Of course, that would be entirely wrong, because it would increase the ranks of the destitute. On looking more closely into Section 4, I think the doubt that Senator Johnson had in his mind is provided against, because if you read the clause—

For the purpose of the provision of work under this section a board of guardians may—

(a) contract with any person or body of persons for the performance by the board for or on behalf of such person or body of persons of any work of public utility undertaken for the purpose of providing additional employment.

It seems to me that the new work must be for the purpose of providing additional employment, and upon a fair construction of the last words in the paragraph, I think it is quite impossible, under the provision of this Bill, to put workmen who are employed at present out of employment. Therefore, I would be satisfied with that section as it stands, particularly as I am most anxious that this Bill should not be lost. If there is any fear that by any amendments of ours we would lose this Bill, I would much prefer that it should go through the Seanad without any alteration. Like Senator Brown and Senator Johnson, I have a preference for the Bill which we sent to the Dáil. I suppose that is only natural, but taking a fair view of this Bill, perhaps there are some things in it which are an improvement on the Bill we sent down. Perhaps it will be possible by agreement to give legislative sanction to the custom that has grown up in reference to the meaning of destitution. If it is not possible to do that, I would be prepared to rely on the good sense of the persons who will have to administer the Bill.

Mr. Wilson

I am pleased that this Bill has come before the House because it focussed the attention of the people of the metropolis to the laws that have hitherto been in existence in connection with the relief of the poor all over the State. Those who are now criticising the provisions of this Bill had very little sympathy with the ratepayers in the rest of the country who were bearing this burden. Now when the people of Dublin are asked to bear it they strenuously object. Senator Brown wants a limit. We would not have heard anything about the limit if the Bill did not apply to the city of Dublin. What I want to get at is this, that we are trying through the poor law to bring about a reform and a service which is really as much a national service as Old Age Pensions. The poor law is being used and the people who pay rates are bearing the expense of a service that should be borne by the community at large. If that was the arrangement we would not have this question of a two-years residential qualification raised. I object strongly to the two years residential qualification being inserted in the Bill because it is not provided that it will be reciprocal, that if a Dublin person is being helped in another county, there is no provision in the Bill by which that charge can be placed on Dublin, or by which a person can be sent to Dublin. It only applies to the outsider unemployed in Dublin who needs relief. I do not think that is fair. I will vote for the Bill because it is a necessary one, but I would point out that we have been carrying on this service for five or six years in other parts of the country. It is only right that the city of Dublin should do its duty as well as other parts. This Bill brings out clearly the necessity for a revision of the law so that this service which hitherto has been borne by the ratepayers should be borne by the national Exchequer. It is a service identical with Old Age Pensions and should be a national charge.

Mr. Farren

The necessity for the introduction of this Bill is a strong condemnation of the present system of society. It should have been introduced in 1923 when similar provisions applied to other parts of the country. Since 1923 thousands of families in Dublin have been suffering untold misery because they could hardly get sufficient to keep them alive. After six years during which they have been deprived of the benefits that the people in other parts of the country got there is an outcry against the introduction of this Bill.

Several reasons have been given why this Bill should not be passed in its present form. Every section pretends to be in sympathy with the principle of the Bill, and with the poor people who are starving in their homes in the city of Dublin and the surrounding areas, and considers that they should be relieved but that it should be at somebody else's expense. That is exactly the position that is taken up. Nobody will say "we are opposed to the principle of the Bill, that these people should be relieved but the other fellow should pay." That has been the line of argument. I confess that from its first introduction I have read all the discussions that took place and I am not very much wiser. The appalling fact is before us in the statement made by a person who ought to be the best authority in Dublin, Dr. Dwyer, the Chairman of the Dublin Union Commissioners, before the Chamber of Commerce on October 22nd, in which he stated emphatically that there were at least 5,000 families in Dublin and in the surrounding districts who could not be relieved under the existing law. The Poor Law Authorities were prevented from relieving them. That is a dreadful state of affairs and it has been going on since 1923. This Bill was introduced for the purpose of endeavouring to come to the assistance of people who have not enough to eat. I support the Bill; I could not do otherwise, but there are certain provisions in it which are not entirely to my satisfaction. Everything depends on the manner in which the Bill is administered. With regard to Section 2—the destitute poor person—I have gone to the trouble of looking up the dictionary to see what is the meaning of the word "destitute," I find that a destitute person means a person in need of food, clothing and shelter. If it is humanely administered Section 2 will be all right, but if it is not humanely administered it will be all wrong. If there is a decent unemployed man and his family in a tenement in Dublin and if he has a few sticks of furniture that he does not like to part with he will not be destitute until he sells every stick. If a relieving officer is a humane man, as I believe most of these officials are, and if he finds a few sticks of furniture, bed clothes and other things in a house where the man is unemployed and without means of procuring the food necessary to keep body and soul, if Section 2 is administered humanely, as I expect and hope it will be, I will have no complaint.

Another section that in my opinion is not satisfactory is Section 4, not that I disagree with employment being found for people who are able to work, because in my opinion, the proper solution of the whole problem is to provide useful employment for the whole people so that there would be no necessity for a Relief Bill at all. There has been too much relief in this country for a long time. It was introduced under the old poor law system to pauperise the people for all time. If Section 4 is properly administered I have no objection to it. There are dangers there which we see, and we have seen them before, but everything depends on how it is administered. I am not going to waste any time in talking about residence qualifications and those other matters that have been raised, because any poor person who is driven from home and has to look for employment in another place, should be given bread if he is needy. When we say our prayers we promise to love our neighbours as ourselves. If we love our neighbours as ourselves we should give to the poor what is necessary to keep body and soul together. All these other matters are only side issues. The big problem is there—these 5,000 families without the means of subsistence in this Christian city of Dublin. That problem has been there for years; we have repeatedly called attention to it in this House. I am glad that at last something is being done to meet the situation. Nobody could dream of opposing this Bill. As I have said, certain of the details might be altered, but no matter what happens, this Bill must go through as speedily as possible in order that the suffering of the poor people may not be continued one hour longer than can be avoided.

Sir E. Coey Bigger

I support this Bill. I would appeal to the Minister, with reference to what Senator Johnson has said, to try to find a better term than "destitute poor." It is all very well to leave the interpretation of the term to those who will be administering this Bill, but I would much rather see a proper definition in the Bill. In some other Acts, certainly in the Medical Charities Act, the term is "poor person" and not "destitute person." When the poor law was established by the Act of 1838 a destitute poor person could only be relieved in the workhouse. That was afterwards extended and outdoor relief became available, but it was given mostly on a doctor's certificate that the person was ill and could not be removed, or something of that sort. The amount of the relief that was given was very small, very often 3/6 or 4/- a week, not at all sufficient for a family, and it rarely ever went beyond 7/6 a week. I would like a much more liberal interpretation here. We know that in the city of Dublin there are a very large number of destitute people, people who are on the verge of starvation. I hope that this Bill will remedy that state of things. At the same time, as Senator Brown suggested, it might be possible to put in a limit, not a limit as to the amount of the relief given, but as to the amount of the rate that might be levied.

Mrs. Wyse Power

I hope that the House will not listen to any soft talk for limiting the amount to be distributed to the destitute poor, for the reason that it cannot be done. No matter how willing you may be to limit it, undoubtedly no limit could be put into the Bill under any circumstances. Every case must be settled on its own merits. How would you make a limit in the case of exceptional cases? The work of the Commissioners for the past four or five years is a very strong earnest that they are not going to give too much away, and I believe that they will not do so. They will have control of this matter for about fifteen months, and even if they are to go at the end of that period, I do not think that they will run riot with the citizens' money. As a citizen and a ratepayer of Dublin I think that this Bill is overdue, that we should have had it some time ago, and I can only add that I hope that the passing of piffling or minor amendments will not prevent the Bill from becoming law immediately.

Mr. Douglas

I agree very largely with Senator Brown, but I differ entirely from Senator Farren when he suggests virtual insincerity in those who say that they support the Bill, but doubt whether the whole of the charge should necessarily be borne by the city of Dublin.

Mr. Farren

I did not say that.

Mr. Douglas

I apologise if I am wrong, but I understood from Senator Farren that he believed those who were in favour of a limit as to the amount which might be charged on the Dublin rates were pretending that they were in favour of the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Farren

I never referred to the area of charge at all. I never even mentioned it.

Mr. Douglas

I am sorry if I accused the Senator wrongly. There certainly is in this House a general acceptance of the principle of the Bill. That, I am satisfied, is perfectly sincere on all sides. There is, at the same time, in the city of Dublin a certain amount of panic, probably unjustifiable, but genuinely there. Senator Wilson's remarks very largely support what I want to suggest to the Minister, that is, that some way should be found, not for limiting the amount of necessary relief which this Bill will involve, but for limiting the amount which will be charged to the city of Dublin, at any rate until the matter has been further considered. I think it possible that a way might be found by which, as soon as the Commissioners responsible were satisfied that a figure of 2/- or 2/6 in the £ will have to be added to the rates, that a report should be made to the Minister, and that the matter should be again considered. There is no question about being in favour of the principle of the Bill and hoping that somebody else will pay. Whether this charge is paid for by Dublin, by Wicklow, or by anywhere else, it has got to be paid by the people, and there is no use in thinking that we can get out of it. It has got to be paid by the ratepayers or by the taxpayers, and the only question is whether an unlimited amount will be charged on the ratepayers. I think that the charge on the ratepayers should be limited, and that the balance should be paid by the taxpayers. It would be outside our functions to move an amendment proposing to put a certain amount of the charge on the Central Fund, but I think there might be some way of inserting an amendment requiring a special report to be made when a certain sum had been reached, so that the matter could be again considered by the Dáil and the Seanad.

I quite disagree with the feeling that some people seem to have, that because you doubt the wisdom of placing an unlimited charge on the city of Dublin you are necessarily opposed to the principle of the Bill itself. When the previous Bill was before a Committee of this House— I was not a member of the Committee —the impression I got from members of the Committee was that we were largely legalising a principle which had been applied illegally, or with somewhat doubtful legality, by the Commissioners, and that that might lead to some increase on the rates, but a comparatively small increase. That would probably have been the impression still prevailing but for statements made by one of the Commissioners which suggested that the sum would be a very large one. Because I do think that there is a great deal of genuine anxiety in the matter I hope that the Minister will deal with the possible cost. I know that it is impossible to gauge it accurately, but I would very much like to know his Department's view in regard to it.

Mr. O'Farrell

I am glad to see that in this discussion we have not reproduced the rather crude arguments that have been advanced against this Bill elsewhere and in the public Press. The only argument that might be said partly to restrict the operations of this Bill was the suggestion of Senator Brown, and also of Senator Douglas, that a limitation should be placed upon the amount of money to be spent under the Bill. I cannot see any justification whatever for imposing a restriction in the case of Dublin when no such restriction is imposed in the rest of the country. It can only be an attempt to enable Dublin city and county to get out of its responsibilities in this respect. The arguments advanced in support of that line of action have been to the effect that Dublin, being a capital city, has more than its due proportion of destitute people, that Dublin is the Mecca of the unemployed and the destitute generally, that, consequently, it has an abnormal proportion of destitute people from other districts, and that the city and county should not be called upon to meet the cost of that abnormal influx of destitute people.

It may be true that Dublin has an undue proportion of destitute people, but it is also true that Dublin has an equally undue proportion of pretty well-to-do people and of members of the professions. The population of Dublin city and townships represents sixteen per cent. of the total population of the Saorstát. If we examine its proportions of the professions we will find that as compared with the whole country it is very remarkable. There is in the city and townships 54 per cent. of the whole of the civil servants. Forty-two per cent. of civil servants work away from the places where they were born. The taxpayers as a whole pay the civil servants, but 54 per cent. of the total live in Dublin city and townships, spend their money there, and in that way add to the prosperity of the district. Of the barristers, a very important section of the community from the viewpoint of earning capacity, 65 per cent. of the total are allotted to Dublin city and townships. The solicitors, another important section of the community have 36 per cent. of their number in the same district. There are 30 per cent. of the medical profession and 43 per cent. of the dentists in the same district.

Mr. Wilson

How many clergymen?

Mr. O'Farrell

I have no particulars in regard to the clergy. There are 57 per cent. of the chartered accountants, and of shopkeepers there are 33 per cent. in Dublin city and townships. Generally speaking, if one goes down the list of the professions one finds that in most cases the big majority are living here, but in all cases considerably more than 16 per cent. of them, which would represent the proportion that Dublin city and county should have if it were a matter of their due proportion in accordance with population, are living here.

Mr. Douglas

Does the Senator know how the rates here compare with the rates outside?

Mr. O'Farrell

It is quite possible that the rates here are as high as in most other places, but the capacity to pay per head of ratepayer is infinitely greater here than in other places, so that the actual amount per pound of the rates is no indication of the highness or otherwise of the rates. A destitute person could not pay a penny in the pound, while a well-to-do person might pay twenty shillings in the pound and still be able to live well. How can you place any restriction on the amount if you are going to adopt a certain principle for the relief of distress? You must either provide the money that is necessary for the relief of every person that is entitled to it or you must leave a number who are not to be provided for. Then why should we seek to pass a vote of lack of confidence in the City Commissioners, seeing that every other local authority in the country, whether managed by elected representatives or by commissioners, is trusted not to run amok in the allocation of relief to the destitute? If the definition mentioned by Senator Johnson were applied to the term "destitute poor person" it would be nothing short of criminal lunacy to insist that a destitute person would have to sell his few sticks of furniture before he could get any relief. It would mean that he would have to sell these poor articles at a sacrifice, less even than they were worth, and goodness knows when he would ever be able to purchase them back again. As Senator Sir Edward Bigger has said, it would be much better for us to put in a proper definition rather than to leave to be interpreted by relieving officers, commissioners and others what "destitute poor" means. If the term means what Senator Johnson said it would simply be sticking to a formula which had its origin in the distant past and in circumstances totally different from those operating to-day, and it would be utter foolishness for us to try to adhere to that in the present Bill.

Mr. Jameson

Several of the speeches made to-day would seem to imply that we were discussing a permanent Bill, but the view that many of us take is that this Bill is of an entirely temporary nature, dealing with a state of affairs which exists at present, and I have no doubt, dealing with it on the advice of the Commissioners, who know the needs of the situation. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with the question of what the probable cost of this will be, whether it may cost five shillings in the pound or may cost more than one shilling. There are figures which, of course, could have been obtained. It is perfectly certain that the Commissioners know the number of families that they will like to relieve.

Mr. Farren

Five thousand is what has been stated to be the number.

Mr. Jameson

Take five thousand. It is quite easy to calculate what it will cost if there are five thousand families to be relieved and if you know how much they will be given each week. It is quite easy to know exactly how many shillings in the pound it will cost, but before the Minister asks us to sign a blank cheque he should be able to give us some idea as to the amount of money that will be required. Senator Farren seems to think that there are some of us who do not wish to run up rates to relieve the poor. It is not use talking like that at this time of day. As Senator Douglas said, we have got to support the destitue poor as we cannot leave them starving. There is wisdom, however, in considering the cost of such a measure because if we had Commissioners who would recklessly spend money the matter is one that would weigh heavily on the citizens of Dublin. The whole House has spoken with one voice in saying that the Commissioners are excellent people who will do their job well.

Mr. Farren

From the ratepayers point of view.

Mr. Jameson

Of course, if I considered that I got hard treatment from them I would not take the same point of view, but they are going to deal out justice. As this is a temporary measure, I do not think that we need say things which we would say if a permanent measure were under consideration. I would like Senators to consider that in the city of Dublin employment depends in great measure on the rates, and when a big measure like this comes up to be considered, if Dublin is excessively rated, a great many businesses will be ruined. We should not, therefore, go on drawing blank cheques, and if we are going to give relief out of the rates, we should have an estimate of the probable cost. I am sure that that is what Senator Brown means. If we know that extra relief will be required, it ought to be left to the Minister to sanction that extra relief, and not to allow illegalities to go on, as they did in the past, where relief was absolutely required and had to be given. There are two phrases that are pretty bad in this Bill. One is "destitute" and the other is "at their discretion." I dare say that the Commissioners are well able to take care of themselves and to judge the cases properly, but if it is known by people that there is no limit to the amount of money which the Commissioners can spend, I would not like to be in the Commissioners' shoes if I had to say "No," because when you know that you are appealing to a man who can draw an unlimited amount of money, your application takes a different tone. We do not know what amount of money will be required. We are trusting the Commissioners to deal justly with it, and only relieve people who really require relief, and not to waste money. I am not at all sure that we ought in any way to alter the wording of the Bill because it is a temporary measure, and we trust the people who will administer it. If, however, it was a permanent measure, and if we were entrusting its administration to bodies about which we know nothing, it would be a bad measure to pass.

Mr. Byrne

When we hear the Minister's definition of the meaning of the word "destitute," can we speak afterwards?

Cathaoirleach

I would like to get the debate finished before the Minister speaks, but if there is any particular point he wishes to raise afterwards, I will not prevent the Senator from speaking. Does he wish to speak now?

Mr. Byrne

I would like to say a word afterwards.

General Mulcahy

I would like to brush aside at once any false interpretation that might be put on the words "temporary measure." This measure is only temporary in the same sense that the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923 is temporary. It extends to the city and county of Dublin a principle which as national policy has been accepted and in force throughout the rest of the country, namely, that you can relieve the able-bodied destitute poor outside the workhouses, the workhouses having been abolished in places other than the city and county of Dublin. I hope that when speaking of this as a temporary measure no one will get it into his head or into the heads of others, that relief of the able-bodied poor will only be given this year, next year, or the year after.

Mr. Farren

The liability stops in 1931.

General Mulcahy

It does not. I would like to say in regard to that point that I put the year 1931 into the Bill because I had a fairly reasonable anticipation that we would be able to deal with the major measure before March, 1931. I may not be able to do that and so I was anxious to put in 1932 in order to save parliamentary time. I am, however, leaving 1931 to stand. I realise that it is a very serious problem to put before the Commissioners, in the first place, to administer a measure of this particular kind and to lay on the shoulders of the citizens of Dublin the financial responsibility of dealing with such a problem as we have here. We have been asked for an estimate. I do not know the extent to which relief may have to be given under this Bill. I say that to take a figure out of the Commissioners' mouths for, say, June or July of this particular year and that to double, treble, or multiply it by ten, as some of our public persons and some sections of the Press have been doing, is not the way to arrive at an estimate. Before the Commissioners advise the Corporation what rate will be required they will have to consider the matter before the 15th January and will have to say, if they can, the amount of money that will be required. They may delay it longer to examine the matter further. After a practical examination of the cases of applicants they may require further time to state what their requirements will be, but we can neither assist ourselves, the Commissioners, the poor, nor the ratepayers by pretending that we can make an estimate at the moment.

What I say is that this particular type of relief has been in operation in Cork and Waterford practically since 1925, and that for the last four years the increase in the amount of outdoor relief to-day has not shown itself to be anything like the proportionate increase such as the figures quoted in various quarters would suggest. But, whatever it is, the situation has to be examined carefully, faced boldly and dealt with. I think that Senator Brown does himself an injustice when he says that he co-operated in the introduction of the original Seanad Bill to overcome the illegalities of the Commissioners. There was no illegality. There may have been a doubtful legality inasmuch as from November, 1927, realising a certain position in the city, the Commissioners extended, with the permission of the Minister for Local Government, the interpretation of provisional relief and such relief as has been given outside the distinct terms of the Act to able-bodied persons has been given as provisional relief.

The Auditor's report which has been mentioned dealt with two years down to 31st March, 1929. As far as this particular type of provisional relief is concerned, not more than five full quarters with perhaps a month or two added were affected, and the total amount expended in respect of these six quarters was £8,700 6s. 11d. So that the Senator hardly does himself justice when he suggested that the original measure of relief, in a particular situation, was of doubtful legality. I think he will recognise that the extension to the city and county of Dublin of the provisions that operated in other parts of the country was necessary. I do not think that anybody in the Seanad would want to argue against that.

Senator Johnson takes exception to the definition of the word "destitute." If the word "destitute" is going to prevent a person getting relief under the Bill, unless he sells the last stick of furniture or even the second, third or fourth last stick of furniture, I am not going to leave it in the Bill, but I would suggest at this stage, at any rate, that the word "destitute" in the Bill will have no such effect and that "destitute poor person" is a description which can be legally applied to a person who is in any way unable to provide himself through his own lawful labour with the necessary sustenance or to provide himself and his dependents with the necessaries of life generally.

Mr. Johnson

Do you agree to delete it?

General Mulcahy

If I am assured that the word "destitute" has not that effect, I would not be prepared, when we know it will not affect the situation, to recall the Dáil in order to get an amendment like that inserted in the Bill, as it is desired to have the terms of the Bill operative in the city at the earliest possible moment. I suggest that the Senator would not wish to do that either. If, in fact, the presence of the word "destitute" will restrict an able-bodied person in the city from getting relief in a way in which he would not be restricted in other parts of the country, I would be prepared to take the word out.

Mr. Johnson

Would the Minister also consider the relieving officer's power in the matter and his legal liabilities?

General Mulcahy

Certainly, every aspect of it. With regard to Section 4, I feel disposed to subscribe wholeheartedly to the Senator's statement when he says that you cannot attempt to deal with unemployment as a problem through the relief system. There is no intention in this measure in any way to do so. An attempt has been made to suggest that this matter has been discussed as a provision of relief for unemployment, but I have never faced it in any way like that. I realise that there is between normal industry in the country with its present organisation and its employing power, and relief pure and simple, an area over which employment has to be organised. I am inclined to agree with Senator Johnson that the relief authorities cannot organise that, and I would ask the Seanad to accept it, that the powers sought for in this particular measure are powers which, in the first place, can hardly be very much utilised. I want the machinery put into the hands of the Commissioners to enable them to get work for a particular class of person who will be seeking relief and whom it will be a charity to employ rather than to give him relief. I do not think that even the critics of the proposals in this particular measure seriously believe that if there is anything sinister or that there can be any effective barrier under the measure, to prejudice the position in ordinary employment of people who might expect to earn their living by ordinary employment.

On the general question that has been raised, with regard to the charge, settlement, and so on, I would like to refer to the matter which has already been referred to by Senator Johnson. That is the suggestion coming forward from the Chamber of Commerce with regard to this question. I find it rather difficult to comment on the present communication from the Chamber of Commerce. As Senator Johnson suggested, there is at present before the British House of Lords a measure arising out of an Act passed in 1927. The real consolidating Act of the poor laws in Great Britain was the Act of 1927. The present Act is simply bringing the consolidated poor laws into conformity with the new changes that are taking place in the organisation of the poor law authorities in Great Britain. We are referred to this great find by the Chamber of Commerce as enshrining the tremendous experience of a country that has such a long tradition in giving poor relief, and we are asked to enshrine in our poor relief system here the idea of settlements. The whole position has been fully described in the majority and the minority reports of the British Poor Law Commission published in 1909. I said before that the introduction of this matter is going back to the flood. Our poor law system was introduced in 1838. British intelligence as to the utility of the Law of Settlement in England, at that particular time in 1838, was so enlightened that, although they applied the British Poor Law system to Ireland in that year, they left out the provisions with regard to settlements, and we never had a law of settlement here in this country. Tradition and vested interests of one kind and another have prevented them, year after year, in England from getting rid of the idea of settlements. At a dozen different times in a dozen different ways, different bodies and different persons have tried to get rid of it. So much has been said about it that without going into the scathing comments of the minority report on the subject, or even the very vital discussion of the matter by the majority report, I just want to read a short paragraph from the majority report, which says:—

Theoretically, there is much to be said in favour of the proposal to abolish the Law of Settlement and Removal. From a practical point of view, however, there is much to be said against its entire abolition, and, accordingly, until experience has been gained of the work of our new organisation of Public Assistance we think it better to retain the law, but in a modified and simplified form. The specific recommendations we make are:—

(a) That the county or county borough shall be the area for all purposes of settlement and removal;

(b) That the forms of settlement be reduced to four, viz.:— birth, parentage, marriage, residence;

(c) That a settlement be acquired by one year's residence in a county or county borough;

(d) That the Local Government Board determine all cases of disputed settlement unless the Board consider that a particular case should be decided in a court of law;

(e) That there be reciprocity of removal as between England, Scotland and Ireland.

Then they say: "If these changes be given effect to, the labour of inquiry, the cost of litigation and the hardship of removal under the existing law will be very greatly diminished. We would thus hope that most of the objections to the law would be met. But if experience showed that total abolition of the law was preferable, that course might be adopted later." That is the majority report. The minority report was very scathing in its whole criticism and showed that in the year in which they made the report, if all the applications of the different bodies for the removal of people from one area to another were carried out, something like 40,000 people would have been removed from one district to another at great cost, perhaps at great cost arising simply out of the transaction in the courts alone and with very great hardship to the people themselves. We never had the law of settlement here. One of the practical reasons that prevented the particular Bill now going through, wiping out the law of settlement, is that, perhaps, benefiting by our experience here in trying to improve the hospital side of their poor law institutions, the British authorities are afraid that if they did away with the law of settlement and broke down the barrier as between the counties, instead of going ahead with the improvements in their institutions which the governing authorities in Great Britain desire, the local bodies would be prevented from improving these institutions, as improving the institutions in some counties would attract people from other counties. Whenever the question of doing away with the law of settlement has arisen, the kind of fear which has been expressed in certain circles in Dublin has arisen in municipalities in Great Britain—that the country people are going to come in out of the rural areas and are going to swamp other areas; that in seaports they are going to be swamped by incomers in another way. Every reasoned intelligence that has been brought to bear on the question of the law of settlement in Great Britain has agreed that it should be wiped out, and it is only political reasons, and these most nebulous reasons that are called practical reasons, that prevent it being done. I find it difficult, when I get a communication like this from the Chamber of Commerce, to think that any group there has set out to consider the matter. I think it is almost unfair to blame the Chamber of Commerce for the contents of a document containing certain things that are the product of minds going back before 1601, and asking us to adopt them as the recent and up-to-date decisions of a progressive nation.

In dealing with this subject, we are also treated to another type of discussion that is grouped round the question of de-rating. We are up against the eternal question of one person who thinks that the thing ought to be run as a tax and another person who thinks that it ought to be run as a rate. This is simply part and parcel of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923. I hope that very soon there will be a chance to discuss the whole matter and that people from one end of the country to another can face the question as to where the burden of this charity should fall, in order that it may be effectively applied for the work that it is supposed to do and in order that dangers that lie in administering money of this kind in this way, without the necessary responsibility for collecting it, may be fully foreseen. So much have we heard in a nebulous kind of way as to these things that I rather shrink from bringing in a measure to have it discussed as a measure without bringing in beforehand one simple law to clarify the existing situation. I think if we did get a Poor Law Act that would be a formal codification of the existing situation, such as in Great Britain in 1927, a lot of people would know where we stand with regard to poor law when they came to discuss what exactly they wanted to do in a measure that we want here, as distinct from any codification.

That is a question for other days. My main interest in this particular Bill is to suggest to the Seanad that there is nothing material in this that was not in their own Bill. Certain changes have been made with regard to what is the area under the Dublin Union Commissioners. Under the Dublin Union Commissioners there are Dublin City, Rathmines, Pembroke, the old North Dublin Rural District, South Dublin Rural District and Celbridge. It has been the policy in the past that it was desirable that an urban district should be associated with the country around it, even in the days of boards of guardians, for the financing of the administration of poor relief. In so far as it has been possible, we have endeavoured to do that, and we have succeeded in getting it in Waterford and in Cork. Waterford city and county have together a joint scheme. Cork and one-third of the county— the South Cork Board of Assistance area—have a joint scheme. In Limerick we did not succeed in getting a joint scheme.

I want to suggest that there is a very great difference between joining up in a joint scheme, with the area-at-large as a charge, a city like Waterford, where the population is 26,000 and the valuation £76,000, and a county of 51,000 population with a valuation of £271,000, and an area like the borough of Dublin and Rathmines and Pembroke with a population approaching 400,000 and a valuation of approximately £1,500,000, with a rural area with a population of 42,000 and a valuation of only £208,000. Very strong representations were made that it was unfair that there should fall upon a small rural area a charge that was more applicable to the city of Dublin. As we are proposing to put immediately before the Oireachtas proposals for re-arranging the areas of Dublin City and County, so that the County Borough shall be approximately the City, Rathmines and Pembroke, and the rest will be a unit area of itself, we consider it would be only reasonable that, as a joint scheme had been refused, we should make the area of the new Dublin City, so far as it is represented by the City, Rathmines and Pembroke as a unit area of charge for itself. It would be unfair to take the small narrow belt of low valuation, comparatively, around that city, and in a temporary measure— a real temporary measure, because most of that area will come away from the city when the Local Government (Dublin) Bill is passed —put on it what is practically city taxation. That is one of the main differences between this Bill and the Bill that the Seanad passed. However, my main interest is to point out that there is very little difference between this Bill and the Bill the Seanad passed, and that the sooner we get this Bill into operation the sooner the intention of the Dáil and the Seanad with regard to this particular class of relief for the poor of Dublin will be put into operation.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Byrne

Every section of the House has admitted the necessity of this Bill, and in view of the Minister's statement and his definition of the word "destitution," and his promise to take out that word if it is found to be harmful, I ask the permission of the House to move the suspension of the Standing Orders in order to take all the stages of this Bill to-morrow, so as to secure that the poor, needy and the hungry in the City of Dublin will get the benefit of it before Christmas. I hope the Bill will not be amended, because if we amend the Bill it means calling back the Dáil to consider our amendments, and that means depriving those who are suffering untold hardships of the benefits they might otherwise secure. Under these circumstances I ask you, sir, if it is possible to allow all the stages of this Bill to be taken to-morrow.

Cathaoirleach

No, we require two days' notice for the suspension of the Standing Orders. As notice should be handed in before 11 o'clock in the forenoon, we could not possibly arrange to take all the stages of this Bill even on Friday morning. What we can do is this:

If the House would agree we could meet on Tuesday next and carry this Bill through all its stages.

Mr. Jameson

Could the Minister tell us if a day or two's delay would make any difference? Does it matter much whether we pass this Bill to-day or within the next four or five days? Why then should we break the Standing Orders? I do not think we shall do any harm to anybody by keeping to the Standing Orders.

General Mulcahy

I am making the necessary arrangements so that as little damage as possible will be done by the delay.

Mr. Byrne

At the earliest possible moment we should pass the Bill through all its stages.

Cathaoirleach

If the House desires it we can do that on Tuesday, and considering the near advent of Christmas perhaps we ought to meet on Tuesday. The Senator can then move the suspension of the Standing Orders so that all stages of the Bill can be taken on that day.

Mr. Byrne

Very well then, Tuesday next.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday.