Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Nov 1933

Vol. 17 No. 25

Public Business. - Unemployment Assistance Bill, 1933—Report Stage (Resumed).

Amendment 1 (Government amendment):
To delete Sections 24 to 27 inclusive (being the new sections inserted by the Seanad in Committee) and to substitute therefor the following four sections:—
24.—(1) All unemployment assistance payable under this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.
(2) All other expenses incurred in carrying this Act into execution shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.
25.—In every financial year commencing after the 31st day of March, 1934, there shall be transferred to the Minister out of the Unemployment Fund established and maintained under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1930, as amended by any subsequent enactment, the sum of £250,000 (two hundred and fifty thousand pounds).
26.—(1) In every financial year commencing after the 31st day of March, 1934, there shall be paid to the Minister, in such manner as the Minister may direct, the following sums, that is to say:—
(a) by the council of every county borough and the council of the borough of Dun Laoghaire, a sum equal to the amount of a rate of one shilling and sixpence in the pound on the rateable value at the beginning of the immediately preceding financial year of such county borough or the borough of Dun Laoghaire, as the case may be;
(b) by the council of every urban area (other than an urban area which is a county borough or the borough of Dun Laoghaire), a sum equal to the amount of a rate of ninepence in the pound on the rateable value at the beginning of the immediately preceding financial year of such urban area.
(2) It shall be the duty of every council by whom money is payable to the Minister under this section in a financial year to pay such money to the Minister in four equal instalments, on the 30th day of June, the 30th day of September, the 31st day of December, and the 31st day of March in such year.
(3) Any money payable by a council to the Minister under this section shall be raised by means of, in the case of the council of the county borough of Dublin and the council of the borough of Dun Laoghaire, the municipal rate, but as a separate item thereof, or, in the case of any other council, the poor rate, but as a separate item thereof.
(4) Where any money is payable to the Minister under this section by a council, the amount thereof may in default of payment by such council be deducted from sums payable from the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account directly or indirectly to such council and be paid to the Minister in discharge of such money.
(5) In this section the expression "rateable value" means—
(a) in relation to the county borough of Dublin, the valuation under the Valuation Acts, as deemed to be reduced by Section 69 of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930 (No. 27 of 1930), of the hereditaments and tenements situate in such county borough rateable to the municipal rate;
(b) in relation to the borough of Dun Laoghaire, the valuation under the Valuation Acts, as deemed to be reduced by the said Section 69, of the hereditaments and tenements situate in such borough rateable to the municipal rate;
(c) in relation to any other urban area, the valuation under the Valuation Acts of the hereditaments and tenements situate in such area rateable to the poor rate.
27.—Any moneys transferred or paid to the Minister under the two immediately preceding sections shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance shall direct.

This is the amendment we discussed on Wednesday last, following the insertion in the Bill, by amendment on Committee Stage, of the sections which had been in it when it originally appeared but which were removed by amendment in the Dáil. As it appears that, to some extent, the amendment which was passed here was moved on a misunderstanding and that that misunderstanding has, apparently, been removed by certain discussions which took place, I assume there will be no objection to the passing of this amendment but I think it is desirable that I should give some explanation, for the information of all Senators, of the manner in which the financial provisions of the Bill will operate and the nature of the information which will be given periodically to the Oireachtas concerning it.

Section 27 of the Bill, as it passed the Dáil and as, I trust, it will pass the Seanad, applies only to payments made out of the Unemployment Fund and payments made by local authorities. The effect of it will be that the full amount required for unemployment assistance must be voted each year. The amounts received from the Unemployment Insurance Fund and from local authorities will be paid into the Exchequer, as is done in connection with a great many other services. After the Bill has become law, it will be necessary to take a Supplementary Estimate to cover the whole of the expenditure expected to arise until 31st March next. The estimated expenditure on unemployment assistance will be shown separately in the volume of Estimates each year. The expenditure will be shown in full except that it will not be possible to apportion exactly the cost of administration and the cost of certain other services such as expenditure by the Board of Works and Post Office, which will be common both to unemployment assistance and unemployment insurance. The estimated amount of receipts from local authorities and from the Unemployment Insurance Fund will be shown on the face of the Estimate each year. The expenditure incurred will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General each year and the certificate of the Comptroller and Auditor-General will be found in the Appropriation Accounts for the year.

In the case of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, which was referred to in the course of the discussion, no Estimate of the total expenditure from the fund is available at the beginning of the year. A complete picture of the expenditure is not available until the account of the fund is published after the completion of the year. In that connection, it may be explained that the account of the Unemployment Fund for the year which ended 31st March, 1932, with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, was not available until September, 1933. The Appropriation Accounts, with the report and certificate of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Votes for the same financial year, were available on 1st March, 1933—that is, six months earlier than the account of the Unemployment Fund. It will be observed that the first complete picture of expenditure from the Unemployment Fund is available some 18 months after the end of the financial year; an estimate of the expenditure from a Vote is available at the beginning of the year and the audited account of expenditure is normally available much earlier than the account of expenditure from the Unemployment Fund.

The account of the fund is presented to both Houses and the matter is left at that unless somebody raises a question about it. A Vote for unemployment assistance must go before the Dáil as an Estimate and must go before both Houses in the Appropriation Bill each year. If there is any desire in any quarter to know the expenditure on unemployment assistance before the Appropriation Account is available, an undertaking can be given that an approximate figure of expenditure will be furnished, on request, to any Deputy or Senator who desires it, shortly after the 31st March. An unchecked figure can, in fact, be given in the first week of April of any year. The establishment of a fund for unemployment assistance purposes offers no advantages over a Vote, from the point of view of the Oireachtas. It entails a serious disadvantage owing to the necessity for apportioning the cost of administration between unemployment assistance and unemployment insurance, which will be administered by the same headquarters staff through the same local offices and in respect of which the same services will be rendered by the Office of Works, the Post Office, the Stationery Office and other Departments. There is not, of course, the same case for a fund for unemployment assistance as there is for unemployment insurance, as the latter fund has to be maintained more or less upon an actuarial basis.

These are the considerations which were brought to the notice of Senators interested in the original amendment and I think it is desirable they should be on record. I am assuming we will have no difficulty in securing the enactment of this amendment, the effect of which is to put the Bill back in the form in which it left the Dáil.

I beg to propose the following amendment:—

In the proposed new Section 26, after sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Housing Acts, 1924 to 1925, the Housing Acts, 1925 to 1930, Section 12 of the Local Government Act, 1927 and Section 10 of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous) Provisions Act, 1932, the separate item of the municipal rate or of the poor rate, as the case may be, by means of which the sum payable to the Minister by a council is to be raised shall be levied on the rateable value of all the hereditaments and tenements situate in the county borough, borough or other urban area as the case may be.

The amendment just passed brings the Bill, as the Minister says, back to the form in which it left the Dáil.

Has the amendment been passed yet?

Cathaoirleach

No.

What is the procedure? We are discussing an amendment to an amendment on the Order Paper which has not yet been submitted to the House.

Cathaoirleach

The other amendment has been submitted to the House. This is an amendment to it. If this amendment is carried it will be added to the original amendment and the whole will be submitted to the House.

It will then be put; as amended.

Cathaoirleach

Yes, as amended or not, as the case may be.

The amount in the Bill as it stood originally was a sum equal to a rate of 1/6 in the £ in the case of boroughs and, in other cases, a sum equal to the amount of 9d. on the rateable valuation. I want to impress on the House that I do not desire to cut across the building policy of the present Government or the previous administration. We must realise that this Bill is establishing a dole, and it is the first time that a dole has been introduced into this country. There is a lot of loose talk in this country. We talk about Northern and Southern Ireland, although the most northerly point of the country is actually in what we call Southern Ireland. We talk about people drawing the dole, when they are not drawing the dole. People have been drawing unemployment insurance out of a fund to which either they or their employers contributed. That cannot be described as a dole.

The Minister has calculated a sum of £450,000. There will be £450,000 and whatever other amount the Minister for Finance agrees to pay. Then there will be £250,000 from the Unemployment Fund. I am afraid that that £250,000 is being put in to make this dole respectable. I think it is a bad policy to endeavour to make any of those things respectable. Unfortunately, the people of this country are getting very demoralised. I remember in my young days that nobody would go to the union or to a charitable association for assistance, unless he was actually starving. We have now arrived at the time when everybody wants home assistance and everything else they can get.

All classes.

They go to Chatham Row in Dublin, and then they will go to the union at the end of the week. They are getting free milk. I do not object to the giving of free milk and other things to the genuine unemployed. I am getting after the besters. You will find black sheep in every flock, and you will find them amongst the unemployed as well. In connection with the distribution of free milk, there are numbers of charitably-disposed ladies doing the work and giving their services free. They will tell you that in the distribution of free milk, many difficulties arise. People claim free milk not altogether because they are entitled to it. If Mrs. Jones gets free milk. Mrs. Murphy does not see any reason why she should not get it. There is a certain amount allowed for free milk and if everybody claims free milk I do not know how it will be possible to supply them.

In the administration of this measure you will have the very same thing happening; you will have people claiming assistance who are not entitled to it. The officials have to be very strict and they are perfectly right. With so many Acts for the relief of the unemployed, it will be very hard for one set of officials to keep in touch with other sets of officials. I think it will be almost impossible to administer this measure. It is really establishing a dole, and the money should be supplied entirely from the Central Fund rather than from the rates. This is really a tax and it should not be collected through the rates.

The Bill sets out an amount equal to 1/6 in the £. The 1/6 will stick in the ratepayers' minds. They will not see the point that it is an amount equal to a rate of 1/6. Under this measure the rate in Dublin City will be 1/8¼d. In the Dáil Deputy Corish protested against the Bill. He pointed out that in Wexford borough the rateable valuation is £21,704 and the effective valuation £19,260. That means that people in Wexford will have to pay the 9d. rate and will have to make up for the people who are not paying it. That is not fair. In the case of Dublin there will be a valuation of about £85,000 affected by my amendment. If certain people do not pay in Dublin the rest of the community will have to bear their share. I submit that the amendment is a reasonable one. It gets you the amount of money you want and it spreads the burden fairly and evenly.

I beg to second the amendment.

I wish to support the amendment. I should like to say with reference to the amendment that was withdrawn by Senator Staines last week and which I then supported, that I supported it very largely on the grounds that I was of opinion at that time, that as the Bill stood Rathmines and Pembroke would not pay their share of the item that has to provide the necessary money under this Bill—that is the item that has to be provided by the local bodies. The Minister in reply told the House that that was not so, that Rathmines and Pembroke under the Bill as it stood would very properly be obliged to pay their share of the contribution that has got to be met by the Corporation of Dublin towards the unemployment tax. Senator Staines' amendment came to us rather late and at the moment I had not had an opportunity of looking into the law. I have since had an opportunity of looking into the law, and I am absolutely satisfied now that the Minister was right. The very section which removes the liability of Rathmines and Pembroke to the municipal rate has a sub-section which provides certain exceptions to this municipal rate. Under that sub-section this falls. Therefore, my opposition on that ground last week was entirely wrong and the Minister was entirely right. I am happy to say that Rathmines and Pembroke will have to pay their share of this item of the rate that is to produce the necessary moneys from the local bodies.

The object of the amendment that is before the House now is to make sure that the houses which have been built under a number of these Housing Acts will also pay their share of the item which will have to be struck in every urban district for the purpose of providing £200,000 over the country. As the law now stands, and as the Bill before the House stands, houses which have been exempted by the Oireachtas, some for five years and some for seven years, would not pay their share of this money. When this matter was raised last week the Minister objected to it. He objected to the inclusion of these houses, because he said it would be a breach of a statutory contract. I submit, with all respect to the Minister, it would not be a breach of a statutory contract. The statutory contract that was entered into, was this—in effect the Government said: "If you build a house, in addition to the grant that the Government will give you towards the building of that house, the rated occupier of that house will, for a certain number of years, be exempt from urban rates." That exemption was quite right so far as the urban rates were concerned. He was to pay nothing for the public services, the social services and other advantages he got by having his house inside the urban area. He was to be let off a share of the contribution to that for five or seven years, as the case may be. But that contract is not broken by making him pay this statutory item which is going to make up his share of the contribution to this £200,000, because it is in no way connected with the administration of the urban area, and it has nothing to do with the services of which he has been let off. For that reason I suggest again to the Minister that no breach of the statutory contract is involved by passing this amendment. Why should not the man who lives in a new house pay his contribution to this tax for national purposes? His share of this money has nothing whatever to say to the reason why he was exempted from the local rate.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the object that Senator Staines seeks to accomplish by this amendment. I have said so already. But it is an extraordinary thing that Senator Staines in this particular amendment lets off the wealthier type of people who, I think, are getting a remission of rates also. There is no mention in the amendment of business premises and premises of that kind which get a remission of rates.

The amendment says that all the tenements and hereditaments are to get a remission of rates.

It says "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any statute whatsoever save and except the said Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930."

Yes. That is what I have said. This amendment is to apply to all hereditaments and tenements.

Very well, that is all right. I am afraid that if this amendment is passed we will run a great risk of holding up this Bill. I hope that is not the object behind the amendment.

No, by no means; if it had been I would not support it.

The Minister has frequently stated that every week's delay in the passing of this Bill will affect the arrangements he has to make with regard to putting it into operation. I agree that everybody should pay his share of what is going. I think Senator Brown was responsible for the first amendment, which gave remission of rates to people who could very well afford to pay their full rates. I protested against that at the time— that unfortunate people who were struggling hard to pay their rates should be compelled by reason of that first amendment to pay more than their share of the rates in order to facilitate tremendously rich corporations to get remission of rates for a number of years. When listening to this discussion my mind went back to 1925 or 1926, when Senator Brown was moving his amendment which gave to these huge corporations a remission of rates for a period of years. Other people have to pay rates this year and pay more than their share because of that original amendment. When I heard Senator Brown saying to-day that everybody should pay his share of the rates I agreed with him. I believed in that in 1925 and——

Why not now?

Senator Brown is hedging a little now. He was the author of the first amendment which gave remission of rates on every new building.

That is not so, as a matter of fact, but I would not at all object to have done it.

If Senator Brown did not move the amendment I wager he supported it very eloquently. However, I will look up the records and satisfy myself. But he certainly supported it. I am afraid that this particular amendment that is brought here to-day is not wanted, because we must remember this, that a series of Housing Acts have been passed by the Oireachtas. I think the Oireachtas, the Parliament of the nation, should honour its word when it gives it.

Certainly.

It is a well-known fact that large numbers of people have contracted to buy new houses in which to house themselves and their families. It is a well-known fact that most of these people are living a little beyond their income in order to enable them to provide these homes for their families. Without exaggeration I can say that people who are familiar with conditions in Dublin and other centres are particularly well aware of this fact. They are aware that owing to the shortage of housing accommodation, large numbers of people have been compelled to enter into contracts for the purchase of new houses. That is so in the case of civil servants and people of that kind, and middle-class people. Artisans and people of that class have entered into contracts to get these houses in order to enable them to house their families. These people are living beyond their income. The State has said to these people: "If you buy one of these houses the State guarantees to you for a period of seven years or so that there will be a remission of two-thirds of your rates." In these circumstances I think the State should honour its obligation to these people. We must be fair about it. On many an occasion I have complained about the injustice of making some people shoulder more than their fair share of this particular burden that I am speaking of. I have continually protested against that, and I would be with Senator Staines in this matter if it were not for the fact that the State has made a contract with these people. In a number of Acts of Parliament the State has made this guarantee with these people: "If you buy your house or erect your house under certain conditions we are guaranteeing to you that you will get a certain remission of rates. You know exactly where you are for a certain period." As some members of the House know, I am in full sympathy with the amendment, but at the same time I do not think it is fair that we should be asked to pass it, because it would mean breaking a contract made with people who have purchased their houses. To my own personal knowledge, many of these people have made very big sacrifices so that they might be able to purchase their houses. They have entered into very heavy commitments, and I can assure the House that many of them are not able to bear more than they are trying to bear at the moment. I know myself that many of them are put to the pin of their collar to meet their commitments, so that in all the circumstances I do not think it would be fair to impose an extra obligation on them.

Senator Staines surprised me to-day, because I remember he was an active supporter of the old Sinn Fein programme. He supported the scheme which led to the change in the poor law system. He has spoken to-day as though he wanted to stigmatise assistance given under this Act as a dole, and put it in the same category as poor relief given under the Poor Relief Acts. Following the example of the old Sinn Fein movement, one of the first steps taken by the Free State was in the direction of humanising the poor law: in removing any stigma or disgrace from the acceptance of home assistance. Senator Staines' speech to-day rather suggested that he was not doing in this respect what he represented people should do in respect of their use of terms. He was not thinking clearly. Certainly, if he was, he has receded very far indeed from the ideals which he once held. If we are going to apply this unemployment assistance section by stigmatising the recipients of it as putting themselves into the position of inferiority, or doing something disgraceful, then we are starting in a very bad way indeed.

On the amendment, I think Senator Staines has not fully realised what the consequences of its acceptance would be, and Senator Brown has inadvertently misled the House by indicating that the relief in rates only applied to what are called municipal rates and did not apply to the poor relief rates.

I think that was the implication in the Senator's speech.

I included all rates that are struck in an urban area.

Then I am not able to understand the argument, because, as a matter of fact, the relief of two-thirds of the rates includes all rates, not only in urban areas but in county areas under the 1932 Act. That reminds me of another difficulty which would arise under this amendment: that under some of the Housing Acts you have a two-thirds remission and under other Housing Acts you have relief in twentieths, with an alteration year by year. The fact remains that by the amendment you would be placing an unfair burden upon those people who are purchasing houses or are renting houses that have been built in the last few years in this way: the occupant of an older house, not having the remission of rates, is going to be relieved of a certain amount of poor rate. You may doubt that so far as Dublin is concerned, but if it be assumed that we are dealing with some of the smaller towns, then without any question whatever the amount that is now paid in home assistance to able-bodied unemployed will be transferred from the poor rate to the unemployment assistance fund, and consequently the charge upon the poor law fund will be reduced by that amount. Senator Brown dissents.

By a portion of it.

Well, say by a half of it. There is going to be relief, therefore, to those people who are not occupying new houses by the amount that is saved in the poor rate. But, under the amendment, the occupants of the new houses would have to bear the whole of the new rate so that they would be penalised relative to the occupants of the old houses so far as this Bill affects them. To illustrate: the present rate is, say, 15/- in a particular area. Of that 15/- let us say 1/- is due to the amount paid in home assistance to able-bodied unemployed. Under the operation of this Act that 1/- will be transferred from the poor rate to the unemployment assistance fund, and therefore the occupants of older houses—houses not built under the recent Acts—will be relieved to the extent of 1/- in the pound of their rates. But under the operation of the amendment if included in the Bill, the whole of the new rate would be imposed upon the occupants of the new houses, notwithstanding the fact that they have been assured under various enactments that they were going to be relieved of two-thirds of the rates, or of seventeen-twentieths, eighteen-twentieths, or nineteen-twentieths as the case may be.

But this is a war tax.

Then what the Senator and those who are supporting him ought to have done, from the implication in all their speeches, was to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. The Senator says it is a war tax. The whole of the Bill is affected by the attitude of the Senator who has just interrupted.

Cathaoirleach

I do not think any other Senator made that interruption.

I think that Senator Counihan is voicing the real feelings of a good many critics of this section of the Bill.

That is not so.

Cathaoirleach

I hope not.

I think I am entitled to express the view—I am judging partly by speeches made outside the House—they would prefer to have opposed the Bill in toto, but they did not wish to do that for political reasons. Senator Counihan who interrupted said: “This is not an ordinary rate: it is a war tax.” It is not put into the Bill as a war tax. It is dealt with as part of the general scheme, and if the opposition be in regard to the incidence of the charge, then another kind of amendment could have been introduced. The amendment, if passed, is going to impose an unfair burden upon those people occupying new houses, as compared with those occupying old houses, because in one respect there will be relief owing to the effect of this Bill and in the other case, there will be no relief. The question of the fair apportionment of what is a national obligation is a different question altogether in respect to this amendment. Personally, I would prefer that this charge upon the citizens should not be raised by way of rating at all. I do not think it is the best way, but it is part of the scheme of the Bill. To amend the Bill as now proposed would require a considerable amount of recasting and, not only that, but would impose an unfair burden upon the occupiers of new houses as compared with the occupants of older houses.

I have been waiting for Senator Johnson to tell us what would happen if this amendment were not passed. He says if it is passed the occupiers of old houses would get off better than the occupiers of new houses, with their special conditions. If it is not passed the occupiers of new houses will get off a great deal better than the occupiers of old houses. That is the contention of those who support the amendment. Senator Johnson bases his argument upon the fact that if the poor rate is going to be cut down the occupiers of old houses will be better off. How many people believe that the poor rate will go down? A great part of the Senator's speech goes wrong if that does not happen. It removes one of his great arguments. Neither he nor Senator Farren told us that the occupiers of the new houses will pay anything towards the national tax.

They pay some—one-third of the charge.

They pay nothing as far as one can judge. Of course, Senator Johnson seems altogether to object to the payment. In his last remarks he seemed to think that the Government should not have a poor rate scheme at all. They do not adopt a rates scheme. They only adopt a scheme that will give them the money they want. They do not care twopence what means are adopted of collecting the money. They simply say: "We want so much, that is all."

If the Senator would read Section 26 (3) and (4) he would see whether there is a rate scheme or not.

I am trying to show that it is not a rate scheme so far as the Government is concerned. It is simply a scheme showing the amount of money they want, and which they say they must get, and which the local authorities must collect and hand over to them in instalments. They settle the rate that will get a certain amount of money. Whether the Government were right in fixing the amount of money by taking the rates, as long as the amount of money is there I do not see what we have to say to it. I do not think the Government should object to this amendment. They set out to get their money. They say that out of each district a certain amount of money shall be paid, but the object of the amendment is to try and secure that everybody pays his share. Senator Farren wants to get off his friend who buys a house and who is not too well off. A great deal of these rates will fall upon people who are pretty hard up. It will fall upon working people, who will have to pay an increase in their insurance payments. I do not say the working people are paying too much. They must pay their share as well as the employers. I do not say that the working classes are grumbling, I have not heard it. I do not think that any citizens are objecting to the conditions of this Bill which enables us to pay into a fund to help able-bodied people who are out of work through no fault of their own. That is the principle of this Bill. We are only, in this amendment, trying to secure that every citizen pays his share. That is the whole object of the amendment, and I do not think it matters to the Government whether it passes or not. I think it is a sound principle that every citizen, no matter what kind of a house he occupies, should pay his share.

On last Wednesday we discussed a certain amendment moved by Senator Staines about which a considerable amount of ambiguity existed. The amendment now before us, whether worded in a form which achieves his intention or not, certainly leaves no doubt about his intention. It is not an amendment to this Bill, and has nothing whatever to do with the Unemployment Assistance Bill. And to that extent, as the Minister dealing with this Bill, I am indifferent as to whether it is carried or not. It is not intended to be an amendment to this Bill, but to the Housing Acts named in the amendment. The whole purpose of the amendment, which was made clear by the Senator's speech, is intended to effect a substantial change in the housing policy of this State, initiated by the previous Government and confirmed by the present Government. I do not know whether, according to the practice of this House, it is in order for an amendment of that kind to be discussed and carried. I know that in the Dáil an amendment of this nature moved by anybody in relation to this Bill would not be allowed to be discussed, because it opens up matters entirely outside the scope of the measure and seeks to amend, by a side wind, other measures previously enacted. If it is intended to change the housing policy of the State, or to reduce the inducements given for the building of houses, it should be done, not in this haphazard manner, but by a private Bill, or by an amendment of a Government measure dealing with housing activities. I do not know how any Senator can possibly satisfy his conscience that if this amendment were passed it would not be a breach of contract. In my view it would be a most flagrant breach of contract. From the year 1925 this State said to persons engaged in building houses, and with a view to encouraging them to extend their activities in respect of house building, that certain concessions in respect of rates would be given.

And that was made retrospective.

And it is now proposed, in respect of those houses, to break that contract and to impose upon the occupiers of those houses a charge in respect of rates for which they were not liable under the Housing Acts. I am convinced if such a course were taken here, it would have a very detrimental effect upon housing activities in the State and that it would destroy public confidence in undertakings given by the Government. I take it that in this matter Senator Staines is expressing his own opinion, because the Party, of which I understand he is a member, not merely support this policy of giving rates remission but themselves initiated it, and in this House or in the Dáil, or outside, they have at no time indicated their intention to revise it. In fact there is no reference to it even in the recently published programme of that Party.

The argument upon which Senator Brown relies to square his conscience is the thinnest ever advanced here in justification of any course. Senator Brown argues that this rate is, in fact, not a rate, that it is a tax. It is not a tax. It is what it purports to be and nothing else. The Dublin Corporation and the other county boroughs and certain urban areas are asked to contribute a certain sum to defray the cost of this scheme, and these bodies will get that amount in the same way as they get sums required for other purposes, by levying a rate upon the hereditaments and tenements in their areas. The contention that this is something altogether different from the ordinary rate charged will not bear water when examined. In the first place, any charge that is imposed on a tenement on the passage of this Bill will be, in whole or in part, a substitution for an existing charge. In many areas it will not merely be a substitution for the existing charge, but it will mean a reduction in the existing charge. Senators who have cast doubts on that have not troubled themselves to work out the mathematics of the proposal. The amount which will be collected in rates by the Dublin Corporation and other county boroughs and in the urban areas will not be a fraction of the amount which will be expended in these areas under this Bill. If these bodies had to provide relief for these unemployed persons at the rates set out in the schedule, the present charge upon the rates would be in many cases much more than double what it is. Wexford was mentioned by Senator Staines. In the case of Wexford I will be astonished if the operation of the Bill does not effect a substantial reduction of the charge now made for home assistance purposes.

There is another consideration which justifies the levying of this charge upon those areas, and that is that those areas are being picked out for very special treatment. We are proposing to give the persons qualified in those areas assistance at higher rates than in other areas. The assistance to be paid in the county boroughs will be at higher rates than in the urban areas, and in the urban areas at higher rates than in the rural areas. As to the charge being levied only upon county boroughs and urban areas and not upon rural areas, the position is that the contribution of the rural areas can be obtained and has been obtained in a different manner, and that is by a diminution in the agricultural grant. I do not say that there was not a case for reducing the agricultural grant this year, apart altogether from this Bill, but the fact is that a reduction was made and the benefit of the reduction was secured by the Exchequer. Consequently, it is not necessary in the Bill again to levy the charge upon the rural areas, because the contribution which those areas would make is already made in the reduction which has been carried out, and the funds realised by that contribution are available for the financing of the measure.

In so far as this is a national charge it is being met by national funds to the extent of two-thirds. On our estimate of the expenditure in the present circumstances, two-thirds of the total amount which will be expended will be contributed from the Central Fund. Only, roughly, one-sixth will come from the county boroughs and urban areas. The other one-sixth will come from the Unemployment Insurance Fund, the revenue of which will be increased in consequence of the increased contribution. The occupier of a new house, who is enjoying, on the word of all Parties in the Dáil and Seanad, a concession in respect of rates, will have to pay his contribution to this service either as a worker or as an employer or in general taxation. It is, I think, therefore, completely erroneous to argue that the person who occupies the new house makes no contribution to this service. He makes the same contribution which every other person makes. The only difference between him and any other ratepayer in a county borough or urban area is that in consequence of the statutory provisions which were sanctioned here in the past, and not merely sanctioned but confirmed, he is getting a concession on the strength of which the house he was living in was built or on the strength of which the price which he paid for that house was increased.

It would be a most serious matter, in my opinion, for an amendment of this kind to be carried. It would, I think, have the effect not merely of doing considerable injustice to the persons immediately affected but of destroying the utility of other schemes which may be adopted to encourage house building in this State. I ascertained from the Department of Local Government which is, of course, the Department concerned in this matter, not the Department of Industry and Commerce, that a measure is likely to come before the Oireachtas during the next few months dealing with this question of a reduction in the rateable valuation or the rates charged upon new houses and an opportunity will be given to members of the Oireachtas to express then any views they may hold on the subject, or to effect in an orderly manner that amendment in the law which this amendment purports to effect. I suggest that Senator Staines should hold over his amendment until then, but, if he accepts my advice, I would ask him again to reconsider the drafting of it because, as drafted, it appears to me that his amendment will achieve nothing. The rateable value referred to in the third last line of the amendment will probably be interpreted to mean the rateable value as reduced by the enactments mentioned in the earlier part of the amendment.

In case I may be misunderstood, I may say that it would be impossible for me to accept the amendment. It is entirely outside the scope of the Bill. It affects the policy of a different Department and it affects that policy in a vital manner. A radical change of this nature should not be carried out by way of an amendment to a Bill of this kind and introduced at this stage of the Bill. I think that a substantial change in housing policy should only be effected after due notice had been given to the Department of Local Government, which is the Department concerned, and after due consideration by the parties who propose it. It would be a very undesirable precedent that measures affecting the policy of one Department should be amended by the insertion of sections of this kind in Bills promoted by other Departments.

Could the Minister give us any definite idea whether or not the Bill he refers to would become law before the 31st March—before the next financial year of the local bodies? If so, then I agree that that would be at least as convenient a way of doing what we are trying to do by this amendment.

I am afraid I cannot say that. The only thing I am aware of is that there is a Bill in course of preparation which will be introduced soon. I think it must be introduced soon if the purpose is to be achieved.

I think the Minister for Local Government gave an undertaking a short time ago that a Bill would be introduced, and that it would be made retrospective, or sections of it in relation to an Act that has lapsed.

Cathaoirleach

The Minister criticised our action in intervening, as he said "butting in by a side wind." I think his own speech has made it clear that the interpretation of Section 26 (a) dealing with the question of rateable valuation, is problematical. He stated that some people might interpret it one way and other people in another way. If that is the case surely if we have any object it is to clarify a position which might possibly arise. I think the amendment will clarify whether the rateable valuation is the rateable valuation in reality, or rateable valuation of another kind.

I was not attempting to cast any aspersion on this House. I was objecting to a Housing Act being amended by what I called a side wind. This amendment is to apply to a Bill which has nothing to do with housing. If we are to amend the housing policy it should be by an amending Bill, or by an amendment carried to an appropriate measure introduced by the Minister for Local Government.

It is common Parliamentary practice to have a Bill amending another Bill, where it is anyway relevant to the sections. It is done every day.

I understand the practice in the Seanad is different from that of the Dáil, but I am quite definite that an amendment of this kind would not be appropriate in the Dáil, because it is outside the scope of the measure.

Cathaoirleach

Is that quite clear? I rule that it is within the scope of the Bill we are discussing. It is a separate item of taxation on the demand note, viz:—Section 3 of the Act of 1926. The amount is to be levied as a separate item. I hold a demand note in which it is set out as a special item of taxation. That being so Senator Staines proposed an amendment to make sure that the separate item on the rateable valuation should not be on the supposed rateable valuation; that the rateable valuation is the real rateable valuation, and not one temporarily reduced by the various Housing Acts.

May I say——

Cathaoirleach

I am afraid I cannot allow you now, senator.

I thought when other Senators were saying——

Cathaoirleach

I am trying to justify my attitude by what the Minister says, that it could not be accomplished. I think this is purely germane to the Bill.

I hold in my hand a document with the heading "Dublin Corporation. Payment Urgently Demanded." I think that clarifies the situation. In one column is given the rateable valuation, and in the next column the assessable valuation. I did not quite follow the remarks of Senator Farren about the amendment leaving out some of the principal ratepayers. I do not mean to leave any out. The Senator probably refers to new buildings which did not get a remission of valuation, but on which the old valuation was left for ten years. These are buildings that were destroyed in 1916. In order to get them re-built the old valuation was left on for ten years. As they were put up in 1920 they were revalued about 1930. I know that in one case the old valuation of £35 was raised to £174 by the Commissioners of Valuation. I do not know what was the position of buildings destroyed in 1922. At present there is no remission of rates on them. Senator Johnson is quite right in saying that I support the humanising of the poor law. I worked hard to get the poor law humanised. I am afraid I am now in the very same position as the Government, and in the same position as every other Government. One can go about saying grand things until one is up against it. When the members of the present Government were in Opposition they had a lot of grand schemes. When they became a Government they found that a good many of these were impracticable. I find myself up against difficulties when it comes to administering the poor law, because there are too many Acts dealing with poor law assistance, and too many sets of officials concerned. I am not referring to the decent unemployed, but as I said before, to the "besters," people who go to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and to other charitable societies and get all they can from them. These are the people we are up against. That type wants to be checked, and it is our business, and the business of the Government, to do so.

Cathaoirleach

The amendment does not seem to deal with that; it deals with taxation.

The position is that the ratepayers are going to kick at last. That point has to come sometime. We all know that high rates produce unemployment. If employed people become unemployed, how long will those who are employed be able to pay for the maintenance of the unemployed? The Minister as well as Senator Johnson and other Senators seems to think that this 1/6 in the £ will reduce the demand of the Dublin Board of Assistance, and of other boards of assistance throughout the country, by substantial amounts. Out of a total rate of 17/1 in the £ the demand of the Dublin Board of Assistance amounts to 5/6½. I have it on reliable authority that the demand next year will be very little less than that amount. I believe it will not be less than 5/-.

Including the 1/6.

Will there not be a reduction?

There will not be a reduction next year. The 1/6 under this Bill goes to the Department of Industry and Commerce. The Minister talked a good deal about the injustice that would be done to people in new houses. My object is to prevent an injustice being done to anyone. I want the rate to be spread evenly, and I think the Minister should accept the amendment.

Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 16.

  • Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
  • Brown, K.C., Samuel L.
  • Browne, Miss Kathleen.
  • Costello, Mrs.
  • Counihan, John C.
  • Duggan, E. J.
  • Fanning, Michael.
  • Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
  • Griffith, Sir John Purser.
  • Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
  • Milroy, Seán.
  • O'Connor, Joseph.
  • O'Rourke, Brian.
  • Staines, Michael.
  • Toal, Thomas.

Níl

  • Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
  • Comyn, K.C., Michael.
  • Connolly, Joseph.
  • Duffy, Michael.
  • Farren, Thomas.
  • Foran, Thomas.
  • Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
  • Johnson, Thomas.
  • Keane, Sir John.
  • Linehan, Thomas.
  • MacKean, James.
  • Moore, Colonel.
  • O'Neill, L.
  • Quirke, William.
  • Robinson, David L.
  • Robinson, Séamus.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Staines and Fanning; Níl: Senators S. Robinson and D.L. Robinson.
Amendment declared lost.
Government amendment put.

I think it is only fair to the House that I should say something about the restoration of the clause which was taken out on Report Stage in the Dáil. There were sundry things that seemed to require explanation when one read it over and it is really because the explanations have been very satisfactory that I ask the Seanad now to adopt the amendment proposed by the Minister. There is one matter on which I was quite wrong to begin with. I thought that Section 27 included some of the money that was voted by the Oireachtas. It does not; it includes only the money raised from the insurance scheme and the money paid by the rating scheme which we have been discussing. Therefore, the idea that any money could go back and be disposed of otherwise than for the benefit of the unemployment fund is mistaken. Any money that is required will be found by the Oireachtas and will be supplemented and will not come at all under that section. I still do not like the first sub-section of Section 24, which says:

All employment assistance payable under this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

I do not like, somehow or other, that a clause like that should stand in the Bill when we know, as far as our information goes, that the money now asked for is coming from two totally different sources. However, it is not worth squabbling over a matter of that kind. I suppose that technically it is the right way of expressing it in the Bill. The next matter which I discussed very considerably concerned the amount of £450,000, which was in the original section as it went through Committee in the Dáil. However, in our discussion I was told—Senator Johnson was very emphatic on the point—that that £450,000 was in the budget. Now, as a matter of fact, it was not in the budget. It was in the budget speech of the Minister for Finance, and that was where I was very much bothered, because I looked through all the figures in the budget to see where it was mentioned, and it was not there. In spite of Senator Johnson's assurance that it was in the budget, it was not in it.

Your definition of the "budget" and my definition may differ, but it was certainly in the budget as I understand the word "budget."

I call the budget a statement of receipts and expenditure.

I call it estimates of receipts and expenditure.

All he said was, that he would require a certain sum, but he did not put it in the budget. It has now got to be worked out, and we find that the expenditure under the Bill will be £450,000 more than was provided for in the budget. I am bothered—not that this is going to make any difference at all in asking the House to adopt the proposal of the Minister to put back this section—in that I do not know where the Minister for Finance is going to get his £450,000. I do not know whether the Minister will give this House that information, but I am sure as the clause is now drawn, that that information is to be given to the Dáil at least. I believe that the fact is that the Dáil will now have to vote a sum of £450,000 for this purpose. We know at the present moment, as far as one can read the budget, that all the money that has been voted and all the money that has been raised by taxation, etc., is already allotted. This is a further sum of £450,000 which we will have to raise to meet the expenditure that will be incurred during the coming year. That matter will be discussed possibly later on, and the money voted. Probably there are various ways in which it is going to be raised. The Government have ample borrowing powers. They can borrow these moneys out of ways and means advances, and then repay out of next year's taxation. It could be raised by loan and carried over forever, but I suppose there is no idea of doing anything of that kind. My own idea is that when the matter comes to be debated in the Dáil the Minister concerned will tell us how he proposes to get this £450,000. I do not propose to deal further with the matter now, because I believe it will be discussed elsewhere.

I was afraid when this clause was taken out of the Bill and there was no mention of the £450,000, that the Minister would not come forward and tell us that the £450,000 was absolutely what he wanted, and how it was proposed to be raised and paid. Now I understand that that part of the matter will be cleared up. The other question which we had under discussion had regard to the likely sum that would be required for the administration of the Act. We thought that we might see the amount of money collected, and that we would get accurate information as to how it was spent, and that the report and accounts would be audited by proper auditing authorities. Now, on the information that has been given to me, I see that to carry out that proposal in its entirety would give an immense amount of trouble, and would greatly interfere with the carrying out of the Government's policy, as economically as possible, in the working of this Bill. Civil servants can be employed in different ways, and allotted quite easily to different spheres as the Bill now stands. They will be transferred in one way or another, and if the Department had to keep a strict account of the cost of every individual employed on the scheme, and had to have that examined by the Auditor-General, it would result in a great deal of waste of time in the Department. I am convinced that the Minister is perfectly right in that attitude, and that the Bill will be worked as economically as possible. I also believe that in what the Minister said, he intends that a month or two after the year closes next March, we shall get a statement of the cost of the working of the scheme and of the amount paid out. Within a reasonable time, at the end of a six months trial, any individual in the Seanad or in the Dáil can get at the facts, and can ascertain how the scheme has been working, and what the expenditure has been. I was fighting for the fund, but I believe the Minister has made the matter perfectly clear by telling us that we will get that information. Although the figures may not be audited, they will be substantially correct. I am afraid that we took up a great deal of time in discussing this matter, but there were so many important questions involved that I do not think our time was wasted.

I think it is desirable that I should make it clear that the enactment of this Bill and the coming of it into operation in this financial year will not necessitate increased taxation. In the Budget statement of the Minister for Finance at the beginning of the year he took into account the fact that this expenditure would arise. A Budget statement consists in a tabulation by the Minister of the expenditure, on the one hand, which he contemplates will arise during the course of the financial year, and, on the other hand, the taxation that will be necessary to bring in the revenue necessary to meet that expenditure. In the Budget statement of this year, the Minister took into account the fact that this expenditure, to an amount estimated at £450,000, would arise before the 31st March next. In imposing taxation at the commencement of the year he had that charge in view, and the taxation imposed was designed to bring in sufficient revenue to cover all the expenditure of the State, including this expenditure, until the 31st March next. The position is, that although taxation has been imposed sufficient to bring in that revenue, there is no authority to spend the money until it has been definitely voted by the Dáil for this purpose. One of the items on the expenditure side in the Budget is the Supply Services which appear in the Book of Estimates every year. The money is provided for out of taxation. It comes into the Exchequer, but each individual item has to be voted by the Dáil. So also this amount must be voted by the Dáil before it can be spent, but the money has been provided in the taxation imposed at the beginning of the year.

The phrase "all unemployment assistance payable under this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas" arises out of that. The money must be provided by the Oireachtas. Even though it is in the Central Fund it can only be expended by vote of the Oireachtas. The effect of that sentence is to give the Oireachtas more control over the expenditure under this Bill than it would otherwise have. Under the former circumstances there might not be need to go to the Dáil at all and, consequently, there would not be the annual review of the position by the Dáil on the vote. Now that the fund is being abolished, that money goes into the Exchequer, but it can only be expended from the Exchequer when voted by the Dáil. The effect of that phrase, therefore, is that the Dáil will have control over the full expenditure and not over partial expenditure.

The only other matter to which I want to refer is that I would like to ask the Seanad, with your permission, sir, to correct a verbal mistake that appears in the Bill in sub-section (2) of Section 28. An amendment was made by the Dáil to the form in which the sub-section originally stood, but, in effecting the change, a slight drafting mistake was made in reference to the fund. It reads at present: "Every sum repaid to or recovered by the Minister .... shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Unemployment Assistance Fund." I would like that the words "Exchequer in the same manner as the Minister for Finance may direct" should be inserted in lieu of the words "Unemployment Assistance Fund."

Cathaoirleach

Yes, but we will put the large amendment first—that is, the Government amendment.

Government amendment put and agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

With regard to what the Minister has just said with reference to a drafting mistake, I think it is the proper thing to do, and I will ask the House to agree. May I take it that the House agrees to the amendment suggested by the Minister?

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Unemployment Assistance Bill, 1933, as amended, be received for final consideration"— put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I want to say a word in regard to the effect of the measure upon home assistance. Since the Bill was before the House last week there has been issued in Great Britain a Bill dealing with unemployment and unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance, or what is in effect unemployment assistance. One of the provisions of that Bill is that there shall be no longer any obligation upon a poor law authority to provide assistance; in fact, meaning that all obligations to relieve able-bodied unemployed shall be imposed upon the new authority to be set up under that Bill when it becomes an Act. I am rather inclined to think that unless there is some warning given—preferably, it should be uttered by the Minister himself—local authorities or poor law authorities in this country will be inclined to follow the lead that is indicated by the practice which will prevail when that British Bill becomes an Act. That is to say, that the unemployment assistance authority will be held responsible for all assistance given to unemployed able-bodied persons. I have said from the beginning of this Bill that there is a considerable danger that the local poor relief authorities will be tempted, if not induced, to think that they have no longer any obligations to assist able-bodied unemployed because of the enactment of this measure. That, I think, would be a very grievous mistake, because the financial assistance given under this Bill is not adequate and will not be adequate to meet very many of the cases that come at present before home assistance authorities. It may be true—in fact, it is true—that the average rate of assistance given to unemployed able-bodied persons in the smaller towns of the country is less to-day than would be given under this Bill, but the amount of relief that is given to-day in the country is lamentably inadequate and this Bill does relieve the situation somewhat in respect to those areas. But if we take the case of the urban areas and particularly the county boroughs, the amount that is provided for in this Bill, while higher than it is in the smaller towns, is still insufficient to meet the requirements of many cases that are brought before the authorities. I am hopeful that some word will be uttered from authoritative circles pointing out to those assistance authorities that they are not being relieved wholly from the obligation to make up to something like a decent subsistence the amount that is received, in the first case from the unemployment assistance authority and supplemented by the amount that is to be received from the home assistance, because that supplemental assistance will be needed. It will be needed even to maintain the present scale of relief that is given.

I have a number of instances where, unless supplemental relief was given by the local authority, the amount paid to maintain a family in Dublin would be less under this Bill than is provided out of home assistance. I would almost wish that it could have been enacted or that it could still be enacted that where persons are in receipt of either home assistance or unemployment assistance no rent for house room is collectible. That would make a big difference, because, from the information I have, I find that persons in receipt of home assistance, let us say, in one case 20/- for a family of seven persons, there is the sum of 6/- paid for house room. In another case, where there are nine persons in the family receiving 25/- in home assistance, 8/- of that is paid for house room; and so on. So that, if we take away the amount that is paid in rental from the amount that would be received under this Bill, the remainder for sustenance or maintenance of the family would be utterly inadequate and would need to be supplemented by the home assistance. Because I want to prevent, if possible, the chance—I am afraid rather a serious chance—that the headline of the British Bill will be taken as a guide for the Irish authorities, I want to make clear that the assistance given in this Bill is not to be taken as the whole of the sum that should be paid to unemployed, able-bodied persons who rent rooms or houses—that there must be paid an additional amount out of the poor rate. Unless that be done, the effect of the Bill will be to reduce the amount going into the family fund from home assistance even to-day. If that were to be the consequence of this Bill, it would defeat the aim of the Minister, and, I think, the aim of this House in passing the measure. I cannot let the occasion pass without pointing out that even when this Bill becomes operative, the unemployed, able-bodied person in the Free State will be considerably worse off than the unemployed, able-bodied person in Northern Ireland.

I want to have placed on record the fact that we, on this side of the House, are not in agreement with the proposals contained in the Bill. We believe that the Bill will have a most demoralising effect on the working population. We have not opposed the Bill, although Senator Johnson thinks that, holding that belief, we should have opposed it. We recognise that there will be widespread unemployment and destitution this winter. It is the Government's responsibility to relieve that destitution. As this represents the Government's plan for relieving this destitution and unemployment, we have let the Bill go through and have interfered very little in the discussion. Our policy would not be to relieve unemployment and destitution by doles and outdoor relief. Our policy would be to give employment. I recommend the Minister to adopt that policy as far as possible. The Minister may ask what sort of work we would provide. If he looks along the County Dublin coast, he will see thousands of acres which could be reclaimed and which would recoup, in time, a large portion of the money expended on the reclamation. In practically every county portion of the money which is to be given to the able-bodied unemployed could be expended on drainage and similar works. Instead of giving able-bodied men outdoor relief, I recommend the Minister to try to find employment for them.

I have had some experience within the last couple of years of the effect of the operation of these measures for relief of unemployed persons. I have seen some of these unemployed men refusing to work. Even this year, I gave work to five or six persons, who came to me in search of it. Their idea, I think, in coming to me was to be able to say to the relieving officer that I had been unable to provide them with work. I put them to thinning turnips—a contract job on which they could earn 25/- or 26/- per week. Some of them worked for a quarter day, and then said they would not be able to earn sufficient at the job. A few more of them, who were inclined to stay on, explained that if they once got off the unemployment books it would be difficult for them to get back again. There was, of course, some commonsense in that. This policy of withholding unemployment benefit for a fortnight or three weeks after people have got a week's work, is a bad policy. It prevents people taking a week's work. The whole scheme would want a good deal of tightening up, and I ask the Minister to look closely into the proposals I have mentioned.

By way of interruption of Senator Johnson, I said this was a war measure. To a great extent it is a war measure, but if I were to go into that question I could show that the greater part of the present unemployment was due to the economic policy of the Government. I had better, however, not go into that subject to-day.

Senator Counihan seems to have the war fever badly developed, but I draw his attention to the information given to the House by Senator Johnson that, subsequent to the introduction of this Bill in the Oireachtas, the British Government decided to copy it. I do not say that the British Bill is as good as ours, but it, at least, indicates that they are watching what we are doing, and do not hesitate to take advantage of any good idea we have to submit to our Parliament for the purpose of submitting a similar idea to their own Parliament. If this Bill is a product of the economic war which affects Senator Counihan so badly, I presume he will argue that the British Bill is a product of the same circumstances.

There unemployment is coming down.

So is ours, I am glad to say.

What about the figures?

The figures show that the number of persons registered as unemployed this week is some 30,000 less than it was this week last year.

Doubtful.

That is a reduction of 33? per cent., which is quite satisfactory for a year's work. I want to assure Senator Counihan that our policy is, and always has been, to deal with the problem of unemployment, by providing work. I think we can claim that we have done more to initiate schemes of public work during our 18 months in office, than was done in any similar period since the establishment of the Free State. With the number of public works initiated and the amount of money spent on those public works during that period, similar activities in any previous period cannot compare. We regard this Unemployment Assistance Bill as the last line of defence against destitution. The first line of defence is the development of industrial activity with a view to providing permanent employment. I am glad to say that our efforts in that direction are producing very substantial results, and certain plans now in progress of adoption will also tend definitely in that direction. The second line of defence is, and must be, the initiation of public works so as to provide employment for those not yet absorbed into industry, or not yet permanently engaged in agriculture. I said, in the course of the Second Reading discussion, that no department of public works, no matter how organised or how controlled, could possibly devise plans for bringing into operation in every district public works of the magnitude required, and precisely at the time required, having regard to local employment conditions.

The State organisation that would be required in order to provide employment with that exactitude in all parts of the country would be colossal. I doubt if human ingenuity could devise such an organisation. Working as best we can to that end, we find it necessary to have behind these measures an overriding measure of this kind designed to prevent destitution arising by its automatic operation. Our aim will be to keep as many as possible off the Unemployment Assistance Fund and engaged on public works or else absorbed into industry or agriculture.

The adoption of this scheme will, incidentally, solve another problem which was frequently the subject of comment in the Dáil last year. When this Government came into office we decided to abolish the practice hitherto in operation of giving a preference in employment on public works to one class. Our predecessors gave a preference to men with National Army service and, because of that, public works were confined to that class. We decided that the preference should be given to those most in need of assistance. In the practical application of that policy we gave work to men who were longest unemployed, who had the largest number of dependants or who otherwise could be regarded as most urgently in need of work. In the operation of that policy mistakes were frequently made. Sometimes a man would be given employment when another man, under our instructions, should have got the opportunity of working that the first man got. Complaints of that kind found their way to the Dáil and were voiced there.

A difficulty arose out of the fact that the employment officers, branch managers and other officers administering the scheme had no statutory power to get information from applicants for work, as to their means and relative circumstances. They could ask these applicants to give particulars, but if an applicant gave false information there was no statutory power under which they could deal with him. No doubt the officer could note the fact that he had been misled by such an applicant, and consequently he would treat with suspicion any further claim made by that person. At any rate, there was no effective means of checking the information or punishing those who defrauded the officer by giving false information. That situation will be changed. Under this Bill we will have full information concerning all unemployed persons, and it will be secured in a manner which will be a guarantee of its accuracy. The information will be checked by specially appointed officers, and we will be able to secure that public works, when started, will be of benefit to those most in need of work. The operation of that policy will ensure that people will go on to the Unemployment Assistance Fund only for short periods; after they have exhausted their rights to unemployment insurance benefit, they will go on to the Unemployment Assistance Fund, and will leave that for some work of a permanent character or work on some State scheme.

This will help to meet Senator Johnson's difficulty in some measure. The rates of assistance provided in this Bill are less than the ordinary rates of unemployment insurance benefit. They are subject to limitations that do not apply in the other case. The rates of unemployment insurance benefit are usually substantially higher than the rates of home assistance. In so far as we are able to provide persons claiming assistance with work, and thus entitle them to unemployment insurance benefit, they will ordinarily be paid rates of benefit higher than the rates set out in the Schedule to this Bill, and higher than the rates hitherto provided by local authorities.

With regard to Senator Johnson's point, this Bill provides only for able-bodied people. A person is disqualified from getting assistance if he is ill or incapacitated from work for any reason. The person contemplated under this Bill must be able to work and must be genuinely seeking it. The duty of providing against destitution amongst persons unable to work and who are destitute because of ill-health, old age or blindness, and so on, in so far as it is not met by the Old Age Pensions Act, the Blind Pensions Act, and the National Health Insurance Acts, devolves on the boards of assistance. Within recent years, these boards of assistance have had placed upon them the duty of providing for able-bodied persons. The payment of outdoor assistance was entirely at the discretion of the local authorities. They could agree or refuse to pay outdoor assistance. Any local authority could have stopped the payment of outdoor assistance to able-bodied persons before this and they can continue to give it even after this Bill has become law. This measure does not prevent them giving it.

We contemplate that local authorities will continue to give outdoor assistance where the particular circumstances of individual cases require that the rate of assistance granted under this Bill should be supplemented. This measure will mean that persons getting outdoor assistance will get a higher rate of assistance. That will not be true in every case, and it may not be true especially in Dublin City, where, because of circumstances, rates of assistance are frequently given by the board of assistance higher than those set out in the Schedule to this Bill. We will operate on a national scheme; we will have general rules, and we will pay on the basis of those rules without the intimate personal touch with individual applicants which boards of assistance can maintain. We look to the boards of assistance to give personal attention to individual cases. If, in their view, the circumstances of a case require that the rates of assistance should be supplemented, we expect they will supplement them.

We provide that the maximum payment goes to an unemployed person with five dependent children. It is easy to conceive an unemployed person with a much larger number of dependent children. In the City of Dublin unemployed persons are housed under conditions which require the payment of a high rent. In such cases we would hope that the boards of assistance, having investigated each case through its assistance officers, would supplement the rate of assistance provided under this Bill. While that will mean that the home assistance fund will still be available for able-bodied persons, the operation of the Bill should, nevertheless, have the effect of substantially decreasing the total amount paid by home assistance authorities. Whereas in the past the board had to pay the whole of the amount required to prevent destitution in particular cases, in future the members will only have to supplement the amount provided under this Bill. In cases where the amount sanctioned under the Bill equals or exceeds the amount granted in the past, no home assistance will be given.

The wishes of the Government in that regard are, I think, well known. The fact that the local authority will have absolute discretion to act in the manner it thinks best in each case is, I think, the surest safeguard that the position will work out somewhat as Senator Johnson said, because these local authorities are responsible to local opinion, and I am sure local opinion will be exercised to ensure that they will not fail in their duty and that cases of destitution will be relieved in such a manner as to make sure that no definite hardship will arise. I am quite satisfied that the operation of this scheme will show in the course of time certain defects perhaps and probably a need for amendment. In my view this measure is to be regarded as an experiment, something the operation of which has got to be watched closely for a period with a view to the enactment of amending legislation in order to perfect it later on. It is impossible to foresee the difficulties that will arise. In some cases we may not have adequately provided against these difficulties, and in other cases we may have more than provided against them. In the course of a year or two we should be able to go forward with a Bill which will ensure that a permanent scheme would come into existence, a scheme that would be as close to perfection as it would be possible to make it.

Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.
Top
Share