Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 26 Feb 1931

Vol. 37 No. 6

Poor Relief (Dublin) Bill, 1931—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (General Mulcahy)

I move the Second Reading of the Poor Relief (Dublin) Bill, 1931. The proposal is to continue for a period of five years the Poor Relief (Dublin) Act of 1929. That Act applied to the City and County of Dublin the statutory provision which had previously been applied to the country as a whole that outdoor assistance could be given to the able-bodied, thus bringing Dublin City and County into line with the rest of the country as far as that was concerned. In addition, it contained certain provisions by which persons applying for relief in Dublin and not having two years continuous residence in Dublin, while being prevented from getting outdoor relief, could get relieved in the Dublin Union. The Act provided that certain relief works could be organised and that persons applying for relief who were not entitled to relief under the Act might however have their travelling expenses paid to some district outside Dublin City or County where they had a prospect of getting work.

So far as the cost of that relief is concerned the number so applying was comparatively few. For almost the eleven months involved in the present year the total cost is only £28 10s. 0d. in the matter of paying the travelling expenses. With the exception of the relief works which were in operation when the Act was being passed and continued until the end of 1930 on the development of lands near the Albert College Farm at Glasnevin, near the Home Farm Road—no relief works have gone ahead with under the Act. But I understand that there is cooperation between the Union authorities and the Dublin Corporation, so that on the Dublin Corporation schemes certain of the men employed are men who are recommended for employment by the Union authorities —that is to say, men who are out of work and who are in receipt of assistance.

A considerable amount of anxiety was expressed as to the burden which the 1929 Act would put on the rates in Dublin. I argued that it was very difficult for anyone to give an estimate as to what the cost of this might be without practical experience of the working of the schemes, while at the same time refusing to admit that the expenditure was going to be as high as some of the people suggested. In fact, at the beginning of the year it was estimated that the total cost of this relief for the year would be £132,000, amounting to approximately a rate of 1s. 7d. in the £ on the City. I speak now of the Dublin Union, because it is the main problem in the matter. Deputies will recollect that as far as the present Dublin Union is concerned, two areas of charge were contemplated; that there would be one area of charge for this class of relief for the area which would contain the County Borough of Dublin at that time and the Urban Districts of Rathmines and Pembroke. That would be one area which would support its own burden in the matter of this particular class of relief. The rest of the Union —the rural portion—would be another area of charge. The total amount that was estimated for the whole of the Dublin Union was £132,000, or approximately a rate of between 1s. 6d. and 1s. 7d. in the £ as far as the City was concerned.

A revised estimate, prepared in January, 1931, shows that the expenditure for the whole area up to the 31st March next will be not £132,000, but only a sum of £81,000, involving, so far as the different amounts are concerned, an amount equivalent to a rate of 1s. in the new County Borough of Dublin, and about 6d. in the rural part of the Dublin Union.

As far as this particular class of relief is concerned, the figures are not available for Balrothery or the Rathdown Union, but so far as the rates for Union charges, that is for outdoor relief and all classes of medical charities and institutional relief—that is to say, Union charges generally are concerned, the rates for the recent years in Balrothery, Rathdown, and Dublin City are as follows:—

For 1929-30 in Dublin City the rate was 2s. 3¼d.; in the same area in 1930-31 the rate was 4s. 1d. That includes an excess of about 7d., as a result of over estimating for the relief of the able-bodied. The estimate for 1931-32 is 3s. 6d. in the £.

In the Dublin rural the estimate for 1929-30 was 2s. 8½d.; for 1930-31, 3s. 4d. which figure involved the same type of over-estimation; and for 1931-32 the estimate is 2s. 6d. In Balrothery for 1929-30 the estimate was 3s. 6½d.; 1930-31, 2s. 4½d., and in 1931-32 it is estimated at 3s. 2½d. which will involve a rate of about 6d. to make up for existing liabilities perhaps due to under-estimation last year. The rate in Rathdown for 1929-30 was 3s. 2d.; 1930-31 3s. 9¾d., and 1931-32 3s. 5¼d. So that in fact as between two years ago in Balrothery there is a reduction but an increase of 3¼d. so far as Rathdown is concerned. So far as these areas go no considerable burden has been thrown on them as a result of the Act of 1929.

When discussing the Act of 1929 I said that I hoped the Act would run for two years instead of one. I think I asked to have the Act an Act that would run for two years instead of one. I simply surrendered to the opinion of the House in making it one year. I said that before the expiry of that Act I hoped to have a Consolidated Poor Assistance Act. I have not been able to produce that Bill and I now have definitely given up the intention and hope of introducing such a Bill before the next General Election. I do not think that the work that is involved in it from the Department point of view or from the point of view of the Dáil could, satisfactorily, be done between this time and the next General Election.

Mr. Corish

Is it coming that soon?

General Mulcahy

I am seeking in the present Bill to have the existing arrangement extended for five years.

Mr. Good

An easy way of getting over a difficulty.

General Mulcahy

I do not know who are getting over their difficulties.

Mr. Good

We shall see.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister will have no responsibility then.

General Mulcahy

We will be prepared to face our responsibilities, whatever side of the House we are at.

Mr. MacEntee

Even if you are not here at all.

Mr. Briscoe

As long as you are facing that way, it is all right.

General Mulcahy

We are asking to have the existing arrangement extended for five years. Before this Bill was brought in I approached the Union authorities in Dublin and in Balrothery and Rathdown as to whether there were any amendments they considered it necessary to suggest. There were no amendments suggested. I quite appreciate the time that has elapsed has been too short to propose any amendments to the Act that might be of any real value.

Deputies will understand that generally, on the principle upon which poor law administration has been organised since the Act of 1923, County Dublin ought to have a scheme for itself and, possibly, both Dublin City and Dublin County ought to have a joint scheme. Several approaches have been made to the bodies involved with a view to getting a joint scheme approved, but further thought is required to be given by the bodies involved before a joint scheme can be produced, so that this class of relief will therefore continue to fall on the four separate areas of charge in County Dublin. Rathdown will still continue to be a separate area of charge and also Balrothery. The present Dublin Union area will consist from April next of the newly extended County Borough, including Rathmines, Pembroke and the added rural areas. That will be the third area of charge for this particular class of relief. The fourth area of charge will be the rural parts of the Dublin Union, that is, that part of the County Dublin that comes within the present Dublin Union.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think that Deputies can pretend to be satisfied with the Minister's explanation as to why a Bill to consolidate the poor law has not been introduced by him. When the Poor Law Relief Dublin Bill was brought to the House it was brought purely as a temporary measure and the Minister stated that he expected to be in a position to introduce a codifying Bill before the period of operation of the temporary measure expired. He stated that the Bill was in draft at the time in his Department. That was two years ago but the Bill has not yet been introduced and the Minister appears to have abandoned all hope of introducing it. I had occasion in the past to refer to what I called the unconstitutional laziness of the Local Government Department. Is this another example of it or are we to take it that the views of the Minister in 1929 as to the necessity of introducing codifying legislation have been changed? If so, we want to know why.

I do not think that anyone will be satisfied with the present method of administering poor law relief. The Poor Law Commission which was established by the Government produced a voluminous report, in which they recommended many alterations, but effect has been given to none of them. Anyone familiar with the conditions knows that the amount of relief given in necessitous cases is altogether inadequate. The highest amount which the largest family secures is fifteen shillings a week, and it is only in a few cases that that amount is given. The report of the Commission showed that in the case of 65 per cent. of the persons in receipt of relief the amount given was less than 7s. 6d. a week. Is it seriously contended that it is possible for a destitute person to support himself and his family on 7s. 6d. a week? I do not think that can be contended, and I do not think that the Dáil can be satisfied that it is discharging its obligation to provide some form of maintenance for these victims of the present system who cannot provide for themselves.

It may be necessary for some one on this side of the House to emphasise the necessity for this Bill, because Deputies opposite have been influenced by the prosperity talk which we have recently heard in considerable volume from the President of the Executive Council and other prominent members of Cumann na nGaedheal. We have been repeatedly told that the Irish Free State is enjoying a measure of prosperity unknown throughout the rest of Europe, and unequalled in our previous history. I do not know if members of Cumann na nGaedheal believe these statements when they read them in the reports of Cumann na nGaedheal meetings, but in case there is a danger that any member of Cumann na nGaedheal believes these statements, and thinks that this Bill is unnecessary, I would ask him to read the statements of another nature that also appear in the Press. Deputy Doyle, who is on the Committee in charge of the Dublin Union, could tell us a different story if he choose, judging by the report in the papers yesterday, which showed that the conditions in the City of Dublin are by no means as satisfactory as the propagandists of Cumann na nGaedheal would have us believe. It was revealed there that there are no less than 6,000 families maintained out of public funds in the city at present, and the number has shown a tendency to increase in recent months. No doubt that tendency to increase is partly explained by the trade disputes which are in progress, but the situation is such that there is a strong case to be made for drastic action on the part of the Executive Council to deal with it. I do not think that they can claim to have dealt with it merely by proposing an extension of this provisional measure for another five years.

The only cure for unemployment and the destitution which comes from unemployment is the provision of work. When the original Bill was introduced I said that it was a fitting condemnation of the whole policy of the Executive Council. The continuance of the Act for another period of five years is a similar condemnation of their policy. They have failed to produce in this country the opportunities for employment which would make it possible for people, who are anxious to make their own living and to maintain themselves out of their own labours, to do so. That is why we have to come here periodically to discuss Relief Votes and measures of this kind for extending the legislative provisions for poor relief. No doubt this Bill will be passed, and it is necessary that it should be passed, but I think it is important that the necessity for it should be emphasised and that the various members of Cumann na nGeadheal who vote for it on this occasion will do so, making a mental vow to themselves that they will not again engage in the task of humbugging the people by talking about prosperity which does not exist.

Mr. Good

It will be welcome news for the overburdened ratepayers of Dublin to read the Minister's statement this afternoon. He told us that the liability accruing under the Relief Act will be reduced in the coming year from something like £130,000 to, I think, £80,000.

General Mulcahy

No. It was estimated at the beginning of last year that a sum of £132,000 would be spent. In fact, during the year ending 31st March next it is anticipated that only £81,000 will be spent. I can say nothing at the moment as to the estimated Union charges for the coming twelve months.

Mr. Lemass

I would ask Deputy Good if he has any apology to offer for the misleading estimate of the Chamber of Commerce when the original Bill was before us.

Mr. Good

I am glad to hear that the estimate put forward, not by the members of the Chamber of Commerce, but by members of the Minister's Department who were in a position to judge of the liability that would accrue to the ratepayers as a result of the Relief Act of 1929——

General Mulcahy

I would like to correct the statement of the Deputy that anyone in the Department of Local Government gave an estimate with regard to expenditure. In spite of very many challenging and aggressive invitations here, I absolutely refused to do anything to contradict the estimates that were produced here and elsewhere, and I speak for the Department.

Mr. Good

I do not profess to be an authority on the subject of the liability that accrued under the Dublin Poor Relief Act but in another place I had the privilege of listening to an official who had all the figures before him and he estimated 5s. in the £ as the liability that would accrue under that particular Act. I accept no responsibility for the estimate but I say again that it will be welcome news to the ratepayers of Dublin to learn that even the figure of £132,000 that was estimated last year is considerably beyond the liability that the ratepayers will be called upon to discharge in the future. I trust that even the figure of £80,000, which the Minister has given us this afternoon will be further reduced when this problem has been inquired into and explored. We have pointed out that we are in the unfortunate position in the City of Dublin, that the poor and needy from all parts of Ireland gravitate to Dublin in the hope of getting employment here with the result that we are burdened with the support of many whose support should be carried by other areas. That is the aspect of this particular question which we are anxious to have inquired into at the earliest possible moment. It is only right to point out that as far as the citizens of Dublin are concerned they never offered any protest or objection to assisting the poor and destitute. They did offer an objection to assisting the poor and the destitute from other areas outside Dublin. We still offer that objection and we are still hopeful that in the near future that particular portion of the burden, which is falling heavily on the ratepayers of Dublin, will be moved to other areas and that in that way we will get the relief to which we are entitled.

This Bill proposes to extend for a period of five years the operations of the Relief Act that was introduced here and passed only last year. I agree with Deputy Lemass that it was the intention of those putting forward that Bill that in the immediate future the whole problem would be carefully considered, and that a Bill would be brought forward here dealing with the question in its entirety. The Relief Act of 1929 was only an Act for twelve months. Now we are faced with a Bill extending for a period of five years the life of that Act which was only intended for twelve months. I say on behalf of this House that that is not fair to us. I say on behalf of the overburdened taxpayers of Dublin it is unreasonable to ask if they are compelled to carry a burden at the moment which should be carried by other areas, that a Bill should be brought in here continuing that liability for a further period of five years. It is unfair to the ratepayers, and I say it is unfair to the House, because it was distinctly understood, as Deputy Lemass pointed out, that this whole problem should be considered in the near future and dealt with. I admit we are dealing with a very big problem, and, may I say, a difficult problem? I do not want in any way to rush those on whom the responsibility for dealing with the problem rests. They require to have certain data and certain experience before them to enable them to deal fairly and reasonably with this difficult matter. For that reason, while I would hope that it would be only necessary to extend the Bill for the same length as the original Act, that is to give it a life of twelve months, I would be willing to go as far as a period of two years, and to agree to extend the Bill for a further period of two years to enable the whole problem to be fairly dealt with. That, I think, should be adequate, and for that reason I will not vote for an extension of the Act beyond a period of two years, owing to the circumstances I have already explained.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

There are two points, and they arise mainly out of what Deputy Good has stated, with which I should like to deal. He has expressed a hope that there will be a reduction even on the figure mentioned. In that hope we all join, but I should like to say, and to express the further hope, that that reduction which he contemplates, and which we would like to see, will not be brought about by a parsimonious policy in the distribution of the help given by this Bill, but rather by a diminution in the number of unemployed people who are so unfortunate as to have to seek assistance under this measure to enable them to live. That is the ideal method of reduction which I am sure Deputy Good, as well as all of us, would wish to see.

A point was stressed by Deputy Good which formed the burden of a great many speeches last year and of some newspaper articles, that most of these people who are in need of relief are people who have wandered or strayed in from country areas to the city. I would like to see some figures to prove that. I would like some figures to prove the case that is so often made, to show that people who come from the country to Dublin are always people who are bound to be looking for assistance in this way. I venture to say that if statistics were compiled to show the place of origin of the people who are helped in this way that they would not be found to bear out Deputy Good's contention. I think that that is evident to anybody who knows the country and the city even fairly well. There are some people who would argue that the city benefits by the people who come from the country to the city and that the class of people who come from the country are fairly well able to make their way in the city here.

Mr. Good

Some of them.

Mr. O'Connell

The majority or them. I believe that there is no justification for that complaint and that no special burden is placed on Dublin any more than on any other local authority in the country. Every other local authority has to provide for the able-bodied people who are in need of assistance and up to last year Dublin was not doing that. Dublin is now asked to do it and Dublin representatives here speak as if they had some special grievance in that. I do not believe there is.

I say again that I hope measures will quickly be found to remove the burden not alone from the Dublin ratepayers, but from the ratepayers all over the country. It is no compliment to us that we have to use this method of keeping in existence able-bodied people who are able and willing to work if work were provided for them.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

I do not think any Deputy can object to the passage of this Bill. When the original Bill was introduced the House was more or less given to understand that it was to be of a temporary nature. We are now asked to re-enact that measure for a period of five years. I, like most Deputies, believe that a Bill of this kind is absolutely necessary, but the question is: is it necessary for a period of five years? As a rule I do not find myself in agreement with the views expressed by Deputy Good, but on this I agree with him that it is a mistake to pass this Bill for a five year period without a further exploration of the whole question. May I say, in answer to the Party point of view urged by Deputy Lemass, that if there is one thing Deputies ought to refrain from doing it is attempting to exploit the miseries of the poor for Party advantage. We all know, as well as Deputy Lemass, that there is a certain proportion of poverty and unemployment in the City of Dublin. Perhaps the Deputy knows, too, as well as most of us, although he will not admit it, that the policy of Fianna Fáil of always painting the country blacker than it really is reacts with more harmful effect upon the unemployed than perhaps he realises.

Dublin City is the storm centre of the unemployment problem in this country. If Deputy Lemass compares the condition of this city with that of any other great city across the Channel the comparison, I think, will be found to be very much in favour of Dublin. The Deputy knows that at the moment some of the wealthiest countries in the world are passing through a very difficult economic period. We have an instance of that in the case of the United States. He knows, too, that there are more unemployed in Northern Ireland, in Liverpool, Manchester and other cities across Channel than there are in the Free State.

Mr. Lemass

Would the Deputy tell us how many unemployed there are in the Free State?

Mr. Byrne

The figure for the Free State is 25,000, while for Northern Ireland it is 29,000. I suggest to the members of the Fianna Fáil party that this policy of theirs of always blackening the economic and financial position of this State is a harmful one not alone to the country, but to their own party. Before this Bill is passed for a further period of five years I would be glad if the Minister for Local Government would adopt some means of going into the question of seeing whether the money to be spent under it could not be employed reproductively or partially reproductively. We have been told that certain rates will be levied during the coming year. The sums involved, as I learn from a document from the City Manager, are of very great magnitude. The demand for the Dublin Union during the financial year 1929-30 was £151,000. For the present year 1930-31 it has risen to £273,208. This is a result of the coming into operation of the Dublin Poor Relief Bill. That represents an increase of £123,000 odd. How much of that is going to be expended in such a way as to bring any advantage to the ratepayers of this city? I think, before this Bill is passed, some effort should be made either by the Government or the Dublin Corporation to see that some return is made for such a big expenditure of money. No one objects to providing for the needs of the unemployed and destitute in this city. At the same time it appears to me to be a scandal that all this money should be spent without some effort being made to get back as much of it as possible for the benefit of the ratepayers by the carrying out of schemes of work.

I understand from the Town Clerk that relief schemes are at present in operation in which the labour costs will amount to £40,000. Surely there could be an enlargement of that particular method of spending the money. Those who take an interest in the social welfare of the people can see that those most in sympathy with the poor and destitute object to this method of spending money. A very eminent churchman in the course of a sermon the other day referred to the degrading effect it has upon the general body of the people. I would ask the Minister to see whether means could not be found of applying portion of this money to a development of the relief schemes at present in hands by the Corporation and involving labour costs to the extent of £40,000. If two-thirds of the increased Union demand on the ratepayers this year were spent on relief schemes what a difference it would make to the ratepayers of this city and to the morale of the unemployed. Is there anyone who will contend that the dole which is paid in England has helped to improve the morale of the English people?

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

What dole?

Mr. Byrne

I know that the Deputy objects to the use of the word "dole," but I am not going to get into an argument with him on that. No one, I am sure, will contend that the giving of this relief has any sort of beneficial effect on the morale of the people. Many decent men have come to me and have asked me if there was any possibility of getting work. I say there is a responsibility on the Government or on the Corporation, or both, to endeavour to frame a scheme of work on which some of this money could be expended.

Mr. Lemass

Hear, hear. Come over here.

Mr. Byrne

I suggest that it is not to the advantage of the people who obtain it, and certainly not to the advantage of the ratepayers, to have the money expended in the way that it is at present. I know that Deputy Lemass is always ready with a cheap quip, but during the time he was speaking I did not hear a single constructive suggestion from him. It was simply the old policy of tearing up, with no idea of how to create, develop, or improve.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is apparently now adopting one of my suggestions.

Mr. Byrne

I have no need to go to Deputy Lemass for a suggestion. I consider my intellect superior to his. As a business man myself I know the difficulties under which business people are labouring at the moment. Business is bad and turnover is small. It is a very serious matter for them to have this extra burden of nearly £125,000 the difference between the Union demands last year and this year clapped on to their shoulders as well as to have this Bill renewed for a further five years. In my opinion, this Bill is being passed too lightly through the House. I think that those who it on the front Benches in this House should set themselves the task of finding a solution for this difficult problem, of providing, if possible, reproductive, or partially reproductive, work for those who are to be given assistance under this Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

I remarked yesterday that it was a long time since we had the privilege of hearing Deputy Byrne making a contribution to the debates. I am glad to see that he is back to his old form. The Deputy, as far as I can judge his attitude on this question, wants us to be like the ostrich, to put our heads in the sand and not see what is going on all around us. Because this unfortunate situation exists his idea is that we are not to speak about it, because it might re-act against the good name of the country or the city. His idea is that as long as the eye does not see the heart need not grieve. We have ample proof of the unemployment that exists in the figures that we have before us, showing the amount of money that was spent in giving meagre relief to the destitute. Perhaps Deputy Byrne would go to the Dublin Corporation offices occasionally. If he does I guarantee that he will come back with a different point of view. He will discover that the Party of which he is a member supports a Minister who interferes with local authorities, to the extent of prohibiting them putting into operation schemes which to a large extent would absorb the unemployed.

Mr. Byrne

If that is so how is the £40,000 in labour costs being expended on labour schemes?

Mr. Briscoe

The £40,000 that the Dublin Corporation has spent came out of the Relief Grant that was recently passed in this House, and has nothing whatever to do with what is spent on outdoor relief.

Mr. Byrne

I believe that money is gone long ago, and that there is not a penny of it left.

Mr. Briscoe

If Deputy Byrne is prepared to make that assertion and to prove it, I will withdraw what I have said. I am a member of the Corporation and I know what I am referring to. Time after time schemes have been put up to the Minister by the Corporation. He examines them, sends them back with queries, and we may get some of them through for small amounts. The Corporation, not being allowed to use money for such purposes has been forced to borrow it, and to put the schemes into operation in the interests of the unemployed, thus reducing the expenditure on nonproductive work. The Minister does not interfere however when he appoints Commissioners. There is no harm in having an Act of this kind on the stocks. If the Government was out to establish industry, and to create work which would absorb the unemployed, there would then be no necessity to take advantage of the relief works. There would be no danger to the type of mind represented by Deputy Byrne if all the people who might benefit by relief work had employment. Perhaps Deputy Byrne will think the matter over and reconsider his attitude.

Mr. Byrne

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but if this Bill remains on the Statute Book, no matter what prosperity there was, you would still have a demand for poor relief.

Mr. Briscoe

I agree that so long as an Act of the kind is there people who are entitled to relief will get it. We do not hope to see the amount paid out reduced. I am glad Deputy O'Connell raised the matter concerning certain people who are getting outdoor relief, and who happen at the same time owing to ill-health to be getting payment from the National Health Insurance funds with which to provide medicine and nourishing food. Is the Deputy aware that the Minister's agents get the amount of relief cut down?

General Mulcahy

Who are the Minister's agents?

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister's agents are people who act on his instructions. The Minister interferes with local authorities and spends the taxpayers money in useless litigation to try to cut down the salaries of the attendants in mental hospitals.

General Mulcahy

For all our sakes, will the Deputy come to the question of who are the Minister's agents and the other persons to whom the Minister gives instructions.

Mr. Briscoe

I am coming to that. I want to prefix my remarks with the definite statement that we are absolutely in favour of relief being given to necessitous people, in no matter what form. The Minister has introduced a procedure into local government to which we are opposed.

General Mulcahy

Where?

Mr. Briscoe

When he had Commissioners in the city of Dublin the Minister allowed them to anticipate legislation and to spend £57,000 on relief. If there was a locally elected body there he would have stopped them doing so, and they would be surcharged. On the other hand, the offences of his agents, the Commissioners, were remitted. I am not opposed to the fact that relief was given in that way, but I want to show the Minister that if an elected body or a Corporation sought to give relief under existing legislation every impediment would be put in their way, while his agents could anticipate legislation and spend the ratepayers money without having any Act of Parliament authorising them to do so.

General Mulcahy

May I again ask the Deputy to say what he means by the Minister's agents interfering with local bodies. The Commissioners can be talked about as my agents for the Deputy's purpose. Who are the agents of the Minister who are interfering with the present administration of poor relief in Dublin.

Mr. Briscoe

I will come to that. I am glad that the Minister is not quibbling with the fact that the Commissioners were his agents, even to the extent I stated. No local body would have dared to spend money in anticipation of legislation, because the secretary of any such body would have read the section of an Act of Parliament indicating that they would be surcharged if they did so. On the other hand, the Minister's agents, the Commissioners, could do so. That is a procedure that we hope will not be repeated. I would also like to show the difficulties that local bodies have to face when they send up schemes for the Minister's consideration. Inspectors are sent down to examine them.

General Mulcahy

What about the agents?

Mr. Briscoe

I am coming to that.

An Ceann Comhairle

Keep to the Poor Relief Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Byrne raised the point that the money spent in this way is useless and is not reproductive.

Mr. Byrne

I did not say useless.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Byrne said the money was ... spent on a non-reproductive basis. I want to show that the Minister has stopped local bodies spending money on a reproductive basis, where some of those who are getting portion of the relief grant would be employed. I presume I am in order there.

An Ceann Comhairle

If that were extended the debate would become something like what we are accustomed to have on the estimates for the Local Government Department. It would become a debate on the administration of the Minister's Department. I did not hamper Deputy Briscoe when he dealt with what the Commissioners did, and I will allow him, perhaps, to give an example, but on the Second Reading of this Bill I do not want to have a debate as to how the Minister for Local Government carried out the administration imposed upon him under the law. He will have an opportunity, and if our experience is repeated an adequate opportunity of discussing it.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Byrne talked of figures of unemployed in the city.

General Mulcahy

Do I understand that the Deputy cannot give any evidence that there are agents of the Minister for Local Government interfering in matters of poor relief in Dublin?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a question for the Ceann Comhairle at all, but the Deputy is quite in order if he gives that evidence.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister will have an opportunity of replying to a few further statements I will make. I cannot in a way prove by the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle the interference of the Minister in the starting of work which would give employment to a number of people and the relief that is ruled out. But the Minister knows his Department does hamper it. Deputy Byrne gave figures of 25,000 unemployed people in the Free State. I wrote to a firm who recently opened a factory here—Messrs. Gallaher—and they told me they had 45,000 applications for jobs. I have the letter in my bag if Deputy Byrne would like to see it. Forty-five thousand applications for jobs out of the 25,000 unemployed Deputy Byrne talked about each man looking for two jobs!

Mr. Byrne

Did he tell you where the applications came from?

Mr. Briscoe

Yes. Each man wants two jobs. I suppose that is what it is. Deputy Byrne said either the Government is to blame or the Corporation.

Mr. Byrne

Would the Deputy tell us whether Messrs. Gallaher were looking for men or girls?

Mr. Briscoe

An unemployed person does not need to be either a man or woman. Is Deputy Byrne not satisfied with that? Deputy Byrne wants to make out that a girl who is unemployed is not unemployed because she is a female. Deputy Byrne also stated that it is either the Government who is to blame or the Corporation. I say it is both. We do not accept responsibility for the mal-administration of affairs in this country by the Government nor do those of us on the Corporation accept responsibility because first of all, the Corporation has, as the Deputy is aware, very limited powers —practically none—and on the other hand, the few powers they have if put into operation are controlled by the Government under the different name of the Constitutional Group who have the majority on it. So whether Deputy Byrne is correct in blaming the Government or the Corporation he can have it as he likes. As far as we are concerned it is either the Constitutional Group or it is his Government. Deputy Lemass pointed out that there were 6,000 families who had qualified for relief. I know of cases under the Act where persons who have not sufficient money to pay for rooms and have not therefore an address cannot qualify. These people are not included because first of all, you must have a permanent address to qualify for relief. If you have not got that you can go and live in the Park and get your relief there. Deputy Good spoke—I do not attach much importance to it and I am glad to see that Deputy O'Connell did not attach much importance to it—of the percentage of non-Dublin people who are being supported by the Dublin ratepayers. Does Deputy Good dispute the fact that when country people come here to Dublin they are always given priority by the Master Builders' Association as labourers? If they are good enough to come here to build the city they are good enough to be considered for the purposes of relief.

Mr. Good

Does the Deputy challenge the fact that these people come to Dublin?

Mr. Corry

And you advertise for them in the public Press?

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Good knows that this outdoor relief is only in operation for one year in Dublin. Prior to that, outdoor relief was in operation all over the country with the exception of Dublin City, and if up to a year ago these people could not get relief in Dublin they would have gone back to their own areas and drawn relief there. They did not come up here like the Commissioners anticipating legislation to Dublin and hang on for three or four years in the hope that relief would be given.

Mr. Good

The reason Dublin was not included was because of this great difficulty I have referred to.

General Mulcahy

No.

Mr. Briscoe

That was the difficulty of keeping relief from being given in Dublin because of the number of country people in Dublin and of the fact that these poor, hungry people hung on until they could get relief. I have not heard such a far-fetched bit of nonsense for a good while.

Mr. Good

The Deputy has heard a good deal of nonsense.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister in another Act set up the administration of the Poor Law Commissioners in Dublin City and left the administration to five in number. He has heard frequent complaints that these five are not sufficient in number to cope with the demand on their time and the people who require their assistance. Balrothery, which deals with much less has twelve such Commissioners, and Rathdown has twelve. But Dublin City which has to deal with as much as the rest of the country put together has five Commissioners to administer this relief, and the Minister has not in the meanwhile seen the mistake he has made in the Bill and has not thought fit to bring in amending legislation to enable the City of Dublin to have that number increased from five to fifteen.

I was trying yesterday to include it in this Bill, but the procedure of the House would not permit of it and I will have to bring in a special Bill to amend the legislation. Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether he is prepared to bring in that legislation so as to make it possible to administer this relief. I spoke before of agents. Perhaps I used the wrong term. The Minister was anxious to know what I meant. I mean the Minister's restrictions not only in the Bills that he puts through this House and which Deputy Byrne, who objects now, supported, but the restrictions he also puts from time to time through the members of his own Department. Those are his agents—people who threaten for five months to surcharge an elected representative if he happens to make a mistake in the interests of humanity and the people who will remit such charges in the case of his own Commissioners if they stretch the point too far whether it is in the interests of humanity or not.

General Mulcahy

I wish to ask the Deputy two questions. The Deputy started on a question of agents and said that because a person gets something from the National Health Insurance or has income in some other way that a Minister's agent interfered with the discretion of the Union Authorities in Dublin as to whether they would give a certain amount of money or some other point. The Deputy does not persist in that statement?

Mr. Briscoe

Would the Minister dispute that the Commissioners would have to administer in accordance with the Act and that they would have to surcharge?

General Mulcahy

The Deputy would not argue that the Department of Local Government interfered with the discretion of the Local Authority as to what they considered adequate relief in a particular case.

Mr. Briscoe

Can I take it from the Minister in such cases in the administration of poor relief that if they find a person drawing National Health benefit they need not take that as income and not give relief?

General Mulcahy

I am not prepared to answer any hypothetical question.

Mr. Briscoe

What is the use of debating the question?

General Mulcahy

How much National Health Insurance?

Mr. Briscoe

If a person who has been unemployed for a certain number of months qualifies for outdoor relief and if simultaneously that person qualifies for national health insurance, due to ill-health, will the Minister say that the Poor Law Commissioners need not recognise the national health income or allowance as income?

General Mulcahy

I am not competent to tell any local authority anything connected with that, but I am definitely telling the Deputy and all concerned here that the local authority is the body that has the discretion for estimating what adequate relief is and the Minister or the Department does not interfere in connection with that.

Mr. Briscoe

Very well, I will put the most lenient interpretation I can on the Minister's explanation. We hope that there will be no interference when full relief is given to a person drawing national health insurance. I hope the Minister will not find occasion to repudiate what he has said now. I do not want to delay the House longer, but I want to say if the Government had accepted, of their own volition, the suggestion of this Party in trying to judge the housing situation as a national scheme they would probably have got nearer to solving the unemployment problem. At the same time, they would be able to solve to a certain extent the difficulties which the ratepayers of Dublin are faced with due to the administration of this poor law relief. If the Government will facilitate and not impede works they will then be going a step towards what Deputy Good wants and what Deputy Byrne wants, namely, that any money spent even by way of relief goes to help local bodies to build houses and will be on a reproductive basis. I hope the Minister will definitely indicate that if he finds the number of people in need of outdoor relief increasing from 6,000 to 12,000 there is going to be no reduction in the amount of relief given.

Professor Thrift

Any difference of opinion that exists is not, I think, on the question as to whether the destitute should be relieved or not, but it is as to whether the cost of that relief, according to this Bill, is falling fairly or not, and whether Deputy O'Connell or Deputy Good is right on that point can only be determined when there has been that inquiry for which Deputy Good has asked, and when, in fact, the whole problem of poor law relief is investigated. In the temporary character of this Bill this House retains the power of applying pressure to get that inquiry from time to time, and if it gives away that power for five years I think it will be making a great mistake. I think the very most it ought to do is to do what Deputy Good has asked for, and insist in the Bill not being extended for a greater period than two years.

Mr. Briscoe

Would Deputy Thrift be able to say that in two years' time it will not be necessary to administer outdoor relief.

Professor Thrift

By no means. I say let the Bill last for two years. At the end of that period you can apply for a fresh measure.

General Mulcahy

Will any one say something as to what the terms of reference for the inquiry that is being sought here might be.

Mr. Lemass

I suggest that the inquiry might be as to why the Department of Local Government have not yet produced the Bill they said was under consideration two years ago.

General Mulcahy

Is that the only contribution that can be given?

Mr. Briscoe

Does not the Minister know that sometimes it takes nine months to get a reply from his Department in regard to building or something else?

General Mulcahy

I do not.

Mr. Briscoe

If I bring to his attention a position where demands have been made with regard to undertaking certain buildings, and where it has taken nine months to get a reply from the Minister, will he see to it?

Mr. Anthony

I am supporting this Bill primarily because I believe it is merely an extension of poor law relief Bills. With other Deputies, from all parts of the House, I regret that the occasion has arisen for the introduction of such a measure. I believe that some attempt should be made by the Government of the day to deal with this question not by way of recurring relief grants but by tackling the problem as it ought to be tackled in a national way. The Minister for Local Government asked that some concrete suggestions be put up as to how this inquiry should be brought about. After all that is a matter of Governmental responsibility. It is not for members of the Opposition Party to indicate to the Government in office the ways in which these economic problems should be tackled. We can, of course, from time to time, make suggestions. I would make this suggestion to the Minister for his information and future guidance. It is an easy matter for him to suggest a committee of the whole House to inquire into this problem of unemployment and to accept some responsibility. I am glad to say that Deputy Byrne also suggested that the Government should accept some little responsibility for the unemployed and for providing useful and reproductive employment.

A good deal has been said, particularly by Deputy Good, with regard to the burden on the ratepayers of Dublin and the gravitation of people from provincial areas into Dublin. Deputy Good must know as well as I do that that is common to the metropolis of every country in the world. Certain economic and other forces will have operated and will continue to operate to attract persons from the provinces towards the metropolis. It has been found on examination that that is one of the great advantages possessed by a metropolis. Let us take Dublin as an instance. You find that these provincials have brought into the City of Dublin a good deal of business capacity and in other ways have improved the whole position of the City of Dublin. It would be as well for Deputy Good to remember his own place of origin.

Mr. Good

Cork.

Mr. Anthony

I am rather proud to say he came from Cork. Let us take a business census of Dublin. What do we find? We find that most of the successful business men—I know that there are unsuccessful business men in Dublin—came from the counties. That is true of every metropolis. I am not a biologist, but I know something about what might occur if Dublin City had not been fed by the provinces. Of course, we have heard the old story reiterated about Cork, about the man leaving Cork not taking a return ticket. Possibly it is a very good thing for Dublin, because we find in the Government and in the State departments of this country the best intellects come from Cork.

Mr. Lemass

Why did they come from Cork?

Mr. Anthony

I am glad to see that while we heard a lot about the gravitation of these people to Dublin Deputy Byrne has gravitated either into the Labour Party or into Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Lemass

You can have him.

Mr. Anthony

Here we have the business man's instinct. Deputy Byrne prides himself on being a Dublin business man. I am glad to see that he has the business instinct so well developed that he appreciates the fact that most of his customers are not Dublin men or Dublin women either.

The principle of this Bill is one that I do not agree with, as I have said. It is a national disgrace that we have from year to year to consider relief Bills. At the same time, we must remember that this economic depression is not confined to this country— it is fairly general. Here we see an attempt, at any rate, at relieving the unemployed. I agree that it is only a paltry attempt. But it is a tentative measure, and as such I give it my support. I would, however, prefer to support a measure which would give some kind of permanent relief in the shape of employment. I agree that it is demoralising to people to have to come along for these relief grants and I hope that at some period of their existence the Government will evolve some scheme that will bring about a greater measure of employment and reproductive work.

Mr. Corry

I do not like to interfere in a matter concerning the City of Dublin but like Deputy Anthony I regret the occasion has arisen for this Bill. I am principally concerned with the statement made by Deputy Good with regard to the gravitation of country people to Dublin. Deputy Good knows very well that he and some of his associates are principally responsible for that because we repeatedly see advertisements in provincial newspapers from building firms in Dublin for country boys to work as builders' labourers, to be brought up here so as to pull down the wages here to Deputy Good's satisfaction. After bringing them in, when they are unemployed, Deputy Good does not want to feed them. I would not like to be a country boy who would come up here trusting to the tender mercies of Deputy Good or anyone like him. Then we have the statement of the Minister that the estimate for this was £120,000 and that only £81,000 was used. Is Deputy Good aware of the reason for that? The reason this money was not used is that a large number of the unemployed went down to Ford's factory in Cork looking for work and perhaps they are now a burden on the ratepayers of Cork. Deputy Good does not look at it from that point of view.

Mr. Good

That is what Deputy Good wants.

Mr. Corry

If he would consult Deputy French he would find out from him how many people from Dublin have applied to him to get them employment in Ford's and it would open his eyes. Deputy Byrne talked about a constructive effort on the part of Fianna Fáil. Deputy Byrne was one of the dumb-driven cows who sat there last night when Deputy Lemass was pleading for a tariff which would give employment to a large number of people. Deputy Byrne sat there dumb and had nothing to say and then walked into the Lobby and voted against it. We do not want to see relief given; we want to see employment given in the country. There were sneers from the Government Benches some time ago when I pointed out that £133,000 was sent out of this country last year for foreign malt to give work to malt-house workers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That money was taken from the labourers of the Free State and handed over to these people. We saw Deputies opposite walking into the Lobby against a proposal to have that industry supported here and to prevent that foreign malt coming in.

Deputy Byrne and Deputy Good and the rest of these Deputies want to see nothing in this country but what they can gather into their own pockets. They are afraid that any employment will be given that will increase the workers' wages. We are sick of this complaint. I was expecting to see the Minister arise in his terror and withdraw the Bill, when I remembered that the very same opposition was given to an amendment which he proposed to a Relief Bill here before. That amendment was opposed, just as this Bill is opposed, by Deputy Good and Deputy Thrift, and the Minister not alone offered to withdraw his amendment but when leave was refused walked into the Lobby and voted against it, under the whip of the real rulers of the Free State. I expected therefore to see the Minister to-day withdrawing this Bill.

I was very glad to hear Deputy Briscoe's allusion here to the Minister's idea of anticipating legislation, because on Tuesday last I was present at a meeting of the Finance Committee of the Cork County Council when a letter was read from the Minister asking the Council to anticipate legislation by making an estimate for another work.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What has that to do with this Bill?

Mr. Corry

It is the Minister's action.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not reviewing the Minister's action. We are dealing with the Poor Relief Bill.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy can discuss it on the next Bill.

Mr. Corry

We are sick of arguments of this description. Deputy Good apparently thinks that because an unfortunate man is unemployed here he and his family should die of hunger. Apparently the influence of Deputy Good and those who think like him succeeded in preventing for a number of years a Relief Bill such as this being brought in for Dublin when outdoor relief was being paid to able-bodied persons in other parts of the Free State. The idea of Deputy Good and of Deputy Byrne was to let these people die of hunger rather than give them anything in the way of relief. When I take up the "Cork Examiner" to-morrow I hope I shall not see any advertisements from the Dublin Master Builders' Association looking for strong country boys to become builders' labourers in Dublin in order to bring them up here and offer them the wage fixed by the Minister for Local Government for road work—29s. per week.

General Mulcahy

What does the Cork County Council offer?

Mr. Corry

Thank God we still stick to the 35/-, in spite of all the advice sent down by the Minister who trebled the salaries of the county surveyors in Cork during the last five years.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry should stick to Dublin and get away from Cork.

Mr. Corry

I hope that the Minister will not on this occasion cringe under the whip of Deputy Good and Deputy Thrift, who are the real rulers here. In view of the Minister's past record, I honestly felt ashamed of him on that last occasion. I hope I will not have reason to be ashamed of him any more. I do not want to see the Twenty-Six Counties ruled by a little clique of the Masonic Order in this House or anywhere else.

General Mulcahy

I think Deputy Corry is fully convinced that he is going to be ashamed of me until he dies. First and foremost, the discussion here to-day affords an indication why I think this Bill should be extended for five years so that we shall not be discussing, through four stages, a Dublin Relief Bill here and, though, perhaps, with less discussion, nevertheless through four stages, the same Bill in the Seanad, year in and year out, to relieve the situation in Dublin, simply because when legislation dealing with the matter of relief of the able-bodied was being dealt with for the country as a whole, Dublin City and County, because of special considerations, were left out, and because later in 1929, it being made clear that it was desirable that that legislation should be extended to Dublin City and County, it was extended only as a temporary measure because of the fears raised in the minds of some people that this was going to be an imposition on the city. We are doing nothing in this Bill but extending to the City and County of Dublin the ordinary poor relief legislation that exists throughout the country.

It has been emphasised that this is a temporary measure, and was a temporary measure. It was made clear originally that it was a temporary measure, but Deputies should not get it into their heads that the extension of outdoor relief to the able-bodied had been brought into Dublin City and County simply as a temporary measure, because that is attempting to live with the idea that you are going to cut off that particular type of relief in Dublin City and County or in the rest of the country. It has been suggested here that this whole matter needs inquiry; but no one has made it clear what inquiry is wanted. Deputy Good wants inquiry as to whether Dublin is not flooded out with non-Dublin people coming into it. Deputy Lemass, I think, wants an inquiry that will result in a different system of relief entirely being brought about. He wants this Bill to be got rid of, and some other form of maintenance provided for persons other than relief of the able-bodied.

Now we are convinced that the change that was made in the system of institutional and outdoor relief in the country as a whole, including Dublin City and County, provided the country with the most satisfactory possible system for dealing with the poor requiring relief. And we are certainly not going to set up any inquiry to consider, at this stage, whether a change should be made either in the incidence of or in the way outdoor relief is given either to the able-bodied or to the unemployed. As far as Dublin City is concerned, I am convinced that the poor in Dublin never before were better relieved than they are to-day, and that never was there more effective machinery for ascertaining their needs and bringing them relief than there is to-day under the present system. In the administration of the present system the officers engaged in it have the closest possible connection with some, at any rate, of the charitable societies in the City.

When dealing with this matter before I think Deputy Lemass wanted all charitable societies to be a thing of the past. Now he wants that type of relief to be a thing of the past. In spite of the opinion of the Deputy, I make the statement that the poor have a better system and are better dealt with, in the matter of relief, to-day than they were in the whole history of the City of Dublin. As to the fears of those who think that the unemployed from all parts of the country are coming in here to the City, and being relieved at the expense of the Dublin people, that is not so. Those engaged in this particular class of work are convinced that that is not so.

Mr. Good

Are they not taking employment from those who are regular citizens of Dublin and throwing them upon poor relief?

General Mulcahy

That is another question.

Mr. Good

It is the same problem.

General Mulcahy

The employers in Dublin could, perhaps, give evidence as to that. But, apart altogether from the opinions of those close up against this particular class of relief, the fact that there have been so few acceptances of indoor relief by persons not having two years period of living in Dublin, and that the expenses that have been incurred in the matter of removing persons not entitled to relief to other parts of the country have been very small, something like £26 or £28 for the whole eleven months, goes to emphasise that. The question has again been raised that the Government should be responsible for providing employment that would absorb all the unemployed. The Bill of 1929 made provision by which local authorities responsible for relief were given every possible opportunity for organising that work as part of their relief scheme. There was a lot of chipping and chopping of words and a tremendous amount of passing of amendments was gone on with lest the ordinary employment in the city should be disturbed by works organised for relief purposes. I was driven to say that the most magnificent words possible might be found, and enshrined in the Act, but I did not think they would assist materially those responsible for administering the Act to find work, and the difficulty, again, is to find work that can be organised for the purpose of absorbing people that require relief. It is for the local authorities close up against the problem, dealing with the individual persons, and who know the possibility of organising the work in their areas, to consider how work may best be organised, and if we get any suggestions from local bodies involved in this particular class of work or duty, whether in Dublin or elsewhere, the different departments of the Government will certainly co-operate with them and help them to turn into work the energies and money spent on relief.

The whole question of work, as against monetary assistance, in the matter of relief, is one that agitated poor law authorities for centuries past. Opinion has swung between one practice and another, from time to time. However, in so far as the local authorities in Dublin are concerned they are close up against the situation. They have the opportunity of consultation with members of the Dublin Corporation and officials and experts as to how the work can be organised, and they can do that more satisfactorily than any one not directly charged with the responsibility.

Deputy Briscoe told me that I have heard repeatedly that the Committee dealing with Dublin Union affairs is too small. I have not. I understand that the Union Committee propose seeing me in connection with the matter and then I may hear something about it, but I do not think that a committee of five is too small a committee to deal with Dublin Union matters in the City of Dublin and I do not see, as the question has been raised here now, that a committee of fifteen would be anything but a less satisfactory number as a committee to deal with it. That is my view at the moment whatever I may think after I discuss the matter. On the one question—the question of extending it for five years—what I am anxious about is, that we here will not be discussing, with as little help to relief in Dublin as we are discussing it this evening, the question of relief in the city next year, the year after that, and the year following that. I said that normally in the county at any rate an arrangement might be made, and it might be accepted that within the City and County of Dublin you could have a joint scheme.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

Does the Minister consider that the present position will continue in Dublin and that there will be no change in five years or does he think that it is to remain for all time?

General Mulcahy

What is to remain?

Mr. Byrne

The present position as regards relief.

Mr. Allen

Until a change of Government.

General Mulcahy

I must say that I do not contemplate that within the next five years either in Dublin or in any part of the country you will be able to do without a scheme of outdoor relief to the infirm and to the able-bodied of the kind at present enshrined in our legislation. But what may happen in Dublin and what I would like to see happen is a joint scheme arranged between the local authorities in the City and in the County of Dublin. I am open to persuasion on the question as to what is to happen in five years. I do submit that we are not assisting in dealing with the relief position in Dublin by arranging to have an annual discussion on the Dublin relief question here on a temporary Bill.

Mr. de Valera

The Minister just touched on one matter on which I was anxious to get more information— that is, the operation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1929. That is, the part of the Act dealing with the power of the Local Authorities to pay the expenses of people to where they would expect to get employment, and also the question of the provision of work. Has the Minister been examining that situation or has he any report to give the House on the matter?

General Mulcahy

I told the House that very little was called upon to be done in the matter of paying removal expenses of people who applied for relief in the city to enable them to go to other parts of the country. After the Act has been in operation for practically eleven months the total cost under this head was £28 10s. As far as work was concerned, the Union authorities were not able to organise any work except the work that was in progress at the time that the 1929 Bill was going through the Oireachtas. That work was in connection with the preparation of the ground for building near the Home Farm Road. But I understood that the present Union authorities had arranged to co-operate with the Corporation so that the Corporation would give employment on some of their relief schemes to people applying for and in receipt of home assistance. That is, some schemes that have been organised under the grants given from the Relief Vote to the Dublin Corporation. This work is being done from the moneys of the Corporation and this Relief Grant. The Corporation have arranged to take from the Union authorities a certain number of men in receipt of outdoor relief and put them at this work.

Mr. de Valera

The Minister could not give us the amount of wages that has been distributed in these works or the number of people employed, and the length of time employed?

General Mulcahy

The work was in progress in Drumcondra at the time when the 1929 Act was passed, and it was discontinued before the end of 1930. At no time were there more than 300 persons employed on that scheme. The numbers varied. The men were employed for three days a week, and for those three days' work they were in fact paid 35s. There was an arrangement by which, I think, in the beginning, they were paid 30s., but then a bonus was arranged and the payment was 35s. for three days. What the total amount involved in that work was, I could not say.

Mr. Lemass

Can the Minister give us any information as to the number of applications made which were rejected on the grounds of the two years' residence qualification—that is to say, that the two years' residence qualification was not complied with?

General Mulcahy

No, and I would like the Deputy to understand that this is an enabling Bill for the authorities in Dublin responsible for relief. Detailed questions bearing on the matter ought to be addressed to those authorities.

Mr. de Valera

Could not the Minister, on the occasion of a Bill of this sort to continue an Act, get this information? It is his duty to get for the House all the information possible.

General Mulcahy

I am sorry if I did not do my duty in the way the Deputy would like.

Mr. Lemass

There was another matter which Deputy Good raised—that is, giving relief in Dublin to persons from the country.

General Mulcahy

I think I have given my own opinion and the opinion of the people involved in that matter.

Mr. Lemass

Surely it is possible to get some statistical proof in regard to these things after a year's operation of the Act?

Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 4th March, 1931.

Mr. Byrne

Could the Minister postpone the Committee Stage a little to see if any schemes of work could be adopted in the meantime?

General Mulcahy

How does that affect this Bill?