Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Dec 1929

Vol. 13 No. 9

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

The Seanad went into Committee.

SECTION 1 (2).

The board of guardians of a union to which this Act applies may, at their discretion, relieve out of the workhouse of the union, any destitute poor person who could not heretofore under the provisions of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Acts, 1838 to 1914, have been relieved by them otherwise than in such workhouse, if such person at the time when he is so relieved has been resident for a continuous period of not less than two years either in the County of Dublin or in the County Borough of Dublin or in the said county and county borough.

Mr. Johnson

I move amendment 1:

Section 1, sub-section (2). To add at the end of the sub-section the following words:—"the expression ‘person eligible for relief' means any person who is unable by his own industry or other lawful means to provide for himself and his dependents the necessaries of life or medical or surgical treatment."

On the Second Reading Stage of the Bill I raised the question of the effect of the reference in the Bill to "destitute poor." The Minister promised to look into that matter and to inform the House whether the effect of these words would be such as to make it possible to refuse relief to any applicant on the grounds that he was not destitute as distinct from being in a state of poverty. If the Minister gives me an assurance that the insertion of these words "destitute poor person" is not going to be detrimental and is not going to be effective in preventing the giving of relief, I do not propose moving the two amendments in my name, notwithstanding my detestation of the phrase "destitute poor person." If the Minister cannot give me any assurance on that point, then I shall try to persuade the House that the amendment is desirable. Perhaps it would be in order for the Minister to state his view on that now.

Sir John Keane

Before the Minister replies I should be glad if he would state whether there is any intention to take into consideration the income that is coming into a particular house, because surely that is relevant and should be considered. There may be a destitute poor person in a house but there may be other people in that house earning. In view of the alarming burden that this measure is going to impose, I think that we should have regard to the practical consideration and not treat the individual members of a household as a separate unit.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (General Mulcahy)

I would like to assure Senator Sir John Keane that all the circumstances of a particular case are taken into consideration, and that there is no system of dividing up the household into individual persons for the purpose of considering whether they should be entitled to poor relief or not. As far as the parent is concerned, the income coming into the house through his family is considered just as any other kind of income, and, as the Senator has said, the matter is dealt with in a practical way. With regard to the point raised by Senator Johnson, I have gone carefully into the matter. The terms of the enactments dealing with the granting of relief, the judicial decisions that have been taken on the matter, and the actual practice do not bear out the fears the Senator entertains that destitution meant that every stick of furniture in a house, or anything like that, would have to be sold before relief could be afforded. I have already explained, with regard to the Bill, that it is bringing the position as regards able-bodied destitute persons in the city and county of Dublin into the same position as persons of the same class in the rest of the country are brought under the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1923. The Temporary Provision Act of 1923 may be said, as regards the description of persons entitled to relief, to have done away with the foundations that existed under the Poor Relief Acts from 1838 down. As regards Dublin, we have grafted our legislation on to the Poor Relief Acts from 1838 down in order to deal in a practical way with the able-bodied persons in the way in which they are dealt with in the rest of the country under the Temporary Provisions Act of 1923. The Senator suggests that certain other words should be used to describe the type of person entitled to relief under these Acts. So far as the terms of the enactments and the Acts of 1838 and 1847 bear on the matter, I want to draw the attention of the Seanad to this, that the descriptions used in these earlier Acts are the basis of the extended relief that is going to be given here to able-bodied persons. Section 41 of the Act of 1838 describes the type of person entitled to get relief in the workhouse. That section reads:

For relieving and setting to work therein, in the first place, such destitute poor persons as by reason of old age, infirmity or defect may be unable to support themselves and destitute children, and ... in the next place such other persons as the said guardians shall deem to be destitute poor and unable to support themselves by their own industry, or by other lawful means.

So that the words the Senator would desire in the Bill as descriptive of persons entitled to relief are used in the Act of 1838. The interpretation of what is meant by destitute poor is again in the Act of 1847, which extended the system of poor relief and enabled guardians to give outdoor relief to certain classes of persons. The very same words were used.

Mr. Johnson

In addition to destitution?

General Mulcahy

Yes, but really as an interpretation of destitution. Section 1 says:—

"That the guardians of the poor of every Union in Ireland shall make provision for the due relief of all such destitute poor persons as are permanently disabled from labour by reason of old age, infirmity or bodily or mental defect, and of such destitute poor persons as being disabled from labour by reason of severe sickness or serious accident, are thereby deprived of the means of earning a subsistence for themselves and their families, whom they are liable by law to maintain, and of destitute poor widows having two or more legitimate children dependent upon them; and it shall be lawful for the said guardians to relieve such poor persons, being destitute as aforesaid, either in the workhouse or out of the workhouse, as to them shall appear fitting and expedient in each individual case; and the said guardians shall take order for relieving and setting to work in the workhouse of the Union, at all times when there shall be sufficient room in the workhouse of the Union to enable them so to do, such other persons as the said guardians shall deem to be destitute poor and unable to support themselves by their own industry or by other lawful means."

Take the case of a widow with less than two children. In this Bill we want them included in the scheme for the relief of the poor. The late Chairman of the Seanad in a decision he gave when on the bench bears out in a judicial way the arguments I put forward here. It is common knowledge that those persons who are being relieved at present outside the workhouse in the city and county of Dublin by reason of being infirm and disabled are not destitute in the terms in which the Senator fears they might require to be destitute under this particular Act. Although they have in their households certain bits of furniture or other belongings, and they are relieved outside the workhouse, this Bill gives power to give them the same type of relief in the same general circumstances of poverty as to the persons who are able-bodied, so that I submit no purpose would be served in the Bill, even if it were desired to change the wording for the purpose of describing persons entitled to relief, to leave out the word "destitute."

Mr. Johnson

I am not entirely reassured by the Minister's statement, for I know from my own reading that a large amount of the evidence given at various commissions in respect of poor law has been in favour of restricting relief under the law, believing that it was the law to relieve persons who were destitute as distinct from other people to whom relief should not be given who might be poor but were not destitute. I know from general experience that the relieving officers in different parts of this country, as well as in England. Scotland and Wales have to satisfy themselves that a person has to be in a state of destitution to be entitled to relief, and that mere poverty and want is not sufficient. However, I shall not press the amendment at this stage, but I wish to express the hope that when the Minister is dealing on permanent lines with the question of poor law he will alter the definition in the Act of 1838 and the Act of 1847 in such a way as to delete the reference to destitution. The definition in the amendment is taken from a definition which is in the schemes affecting the counties, which in its turn has been taken from the 1847 Act, and the schemes do not refer to the destitute poor. I urge the Minister to defer to this point of view when dealing in a more permanent fashion with poor law.

Dr. Gogarty

As I understand it this Act terminates in 1931, and in order to be eligible for relief people must be resident two years in the city. In addition to the people who are here already two years, there will be a whole year for people to trek in from the country to enjoy the benefits of the Act, and there is no means of preventing them from coming in from the country for that purpose. On the contrary, there is an invitation to people to come into the city and be destitute here instead of remaining destitute in the districts where they are at present, or doing what is more natural, seeking agricultural employment in their own districts. Twelve months are open to people in the surrounding districts of Dublin to come here and enjoy this poor law relief. I think the necessity for this relief has to some extent arisen from the policy of the Government in not demolishing slums that have been vacated by people who have gone into the new houses built in the city and district —in Fairview, Crumlin and other places.

Mr. Milroy

On a point of order, I think that the Senator's remarks are not relevant to the amendment before the House.

Dr. Gogarty

Surely cause is not irrelevant to effect in the case of destitution? People are being invited to come into the city to qualify under the Act in twelve months. Something should be done to remedy that. Why limit it to two years' residence in the city?

Mrs. Wyse Power

I suppose that was put in to please somebody.

Dr. Gogarty

Surely this is a matter in which there should be some limitation. As long as slum houses remain undemolished there is an invitation for people to come in and reside in them, and that will increase unemployment and the necessity for poor law relief. Trouble has been taken to provide houses to replace the slums, yet the slum areas are overcrowded.

Mr. Byrne

May I ask what will be the effect if amendments are carried here to-day? Would it not mean that the needy people in Dublin who are waiting for the passing of the Bill will for a couple of weeks be deprived of the relief they are expecting? I ask the House to remember that when they are considering accepting amendments. I am aware that at the moment the authorities have ready the machinery for granting relief within twenty-four hours. Many of us who would like to support amendments will not do so, for that would mean delaying the granting of relief. I hope the Seanad will not adopt any of the amendments.

Mr. Hooper

Would it be in order to comment on anything the Minister may say now?

Cathaoirleach

We have already gone a long way outside the amendment. Once we begin to travel away from an amendment no one knows how far we are likely to proceed. I do not think the procedure of addressing a question to a Minister to get an answer from him in this way is a dignified one. I think when Senators require information they should seek to get it by way of an amendment rather than through a question.

Mr. Hooper

I have an amendment down which may be affected by the answer the Minister will give. If he gives the information asked for now, this would be the best time for me to comment upon his answer.

Cathaoirleach

I will allow you, Senator, to comment on any information the Minister may give at this particular moment.

Mr. Dowdall

In view of the fact that Senator Johnson has stated that he does not intend to put the amendment to a division, I take it that is tantamount to asking leave to withdraw it. I think what is before us now is that leave be given to have the amendment withdrawn.

Cathaoirleach

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Byrne

I do not waste much time in this House, and I think I am entitled to some consideration. I think I am entitled to a reply from the Minister as to the effect of the passing of any of these amendments. Would that have the effect of delaying the granting of relief to people who would otherwise get it?

General Mulcahy

I suggest that we should deal with the amendments on their merits. I think we would be more satisfied with that.

Amendments 2, 4 and 6 (Senator Johnson) not moved.

Mr. Johnson

I move:—

Section 2. To add at the end of the section the words:—

"Provided that no person eligible for relief shall be relieved in any institution provided and maintained by a board of guardians of a Union to which this Act applies unless he can be relieved effectively in such institution at less cost than in any other lawful way."

This amendment is taken from the schemes which are operating in the rest of the country. I do not know whether it is necessary to press it at this stage. I do not desire to hold up the Bill, but I would like it to be provided in the Dublin scheme as in the rest of the country that a person shall not be forced to go into an institution. Such a provision as the amendment suggests would ensure that unless a person can be relieved more effectively and at less cost inside than outside an institution, he shall not be sent in to the institution. I cannot say what has been the practice in the last year or two by the Commissioners, but in any poor law relating to Dublin, I think a provision of this kind should be brought into effect.

Sir John Keane

I think we ought to be rather critical about this amendment, because my recollection of this question of cost in the workhouses is that it is a purely fictitious figure. There are no overhead charges taken into account—the maintenance of buildings, the payment of rates and salaries to higher officials. The present cost is illusory. If this is to be done it should be done on the basis of true and not fictitious cost.

General Mulcahy

I am glad the Senator is not going to press the amendment because I do not not know that it would serve the purpose he has in mind with regard to including regulations that apply to hospitals and county homes. We are dealing now with maintenance in workhouses, and as to whether we should relieve able-bodied people inside the workhouses or outside them. I think that is a new criterion to apply to relief. It shows that there is a misconception as to what the Bill is intended to do. The Bill is intended to give outdoor relief to the able-bodied. There is also a misconception as to what the tendency is in the Dublin workhouse. The tendency at present is to develop it into an hospital on the one side and a county home on the other. The amendment might work out in a way different to what the Senator anticipated. I could have it argued to me that it would be cheaper to take a man and his wife and six children into the workhouse than to give them outdoor relief outside, for, as Senator Sir John Keane said, the overhead cost would not be taken into consideration. The overhead cost is there already, for the workhouse exists. I ask the Senator to take it that the intention of the Bill is to give relief to able-bodied people outside the workhouse. There would be, and there have been, cases of rather undesirable persons seeking relief, and other persons pressing for relief that the Commissioners could not bring themselves to give outside the workhouse, and they would require them to come inside the workhouse in order that they should be effectively relieved.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Agreed that Sections 2 and 3 stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 4.

Sub-section (1). A board of guardians may, as a condition of the granting of relief under this Act to any person, require such person to perform any task of work which in the opinion of the board is suitable to the sex, age, strength, and capacity of such person.

Sir John Keane

I move:—

Section 4, sub-section (1). To delete in line 1 the word "may" and to substitute therefor the word "shall."

I feel in rather a dilemma in moving this amendment. The remarks of Senator Byrne suggested to me a revival of popular administration in the City of Dublin, that our sentiment is going to be so strong that we are not to do our duty, but that we are to let our hearts run away with our heads, and pass this Bill whether it is good or bad. I should be sorry the House should adopt that line with regard to my amendment. The effect of the amendment is to impose an obligation on the guardians to make everybody work according to his age and capacity, and not merely to give a permissive power to do so. It may be argued that that is not done in other parts of the country, but I put it to the House that the conditions in Dublin differ materially from those that prevail in other parts of the country where you have the large, unsheltered trade of agriculture. I know I will lay myself open to the charge of advocating the principle of "nature red of tooth and claw," as was said in the other House, but I will say that the laws of supply and demand apply as much to labour as to any other commodity. You may try and dodge the issue, you may try and force an artificial position by sentiment, but in the long run economic laws will find you out. You will have to face up to them, and the taxpayers will have to face up to them. You may put off facing the issue, but truth is eternal.

In Dublin, you have got an outlet. In the country there are unsheltered trades where the wages are deplorably low, but the people can get a subsistence on these low rates. In Dublin, you have got sheltered trades, and the vigilance of the unions, which act as a protection against any lowering of what they consider the minimum rate at which people should be rewarded. I will go further, and ask the House to agree with me that there is a very large element of people who are taking advantage, or are prepared to take advantage, of the sentiment that in some quarters lies behind this disposition to assist people who do not want to work. There are people who will not do a decent day's work in order to earn their living and who prefer to get their living in some other way. Surely it is only reasonable that we should apply the acid test to decide whether a thing is uneconomic or unsound in principle?

I hold this whole structure is fundamentally unsound, and the only way to revive industry and promote efficiency is to get co-operation between capital and labour, and so stimulate employment. As long as you have this unsound structure I would not insist on the work being necessarily economic. Take the occupation or task of breaking stones. That could be performed by all the able-bodied. The breaking of stones might not be wanted, but it might be well worth while to put people to the work of breaking stones, which does not require a high rate of efficiency. If the stones are not wanted in Dublin it would pay in the long run to cart them where they would be required. When you talk of the importance of applying a labour test, you can do that by putting a yard of stones before an able-bodied person requiring relief and saying "before you get relief that yard of stones will have to be broken." You may say that is unnatural or inhuman, but I call it common sense. That is a test that could be imposed on the work-shy. If you do that you will be surprised at the numbers who expect relief but who will not work. I believe that the old people were right in the principle that the workhouses should provide relief for those who were really destitute. The tendency is now in the wrong direction, to let our sentiment run away with our common sense, and to try and remove the stigma of pauperism. Are you going to remove the stigma of pauperism by relieving people outside of the workhouse? It is charitable relief whether you relieve inside or outside the workhouse. I cannot see any distinction between giving relief through a relieving officer or in an institution. I hope the House will accept the amendment mainly because it is fundamentally sound. The conditions in Dublin are totally different to those in the country. You want to make sure that the large number of people who drift into the city to get relief are prepared to do work before they get relief.

Mr. Farren

I am sure the good sense of the House will reject the amendment, because it would be impossible to put what it suggests into operation. It suggests that a person applying for relief shall be given a work test. The Senator apparently has in mind the conditions of a small village when he is speaking of relief in Dublin. According to the figures of the responsible authorities there are 5,000 able-bodied heads of families in Dublin who cannot secure employment, and who require assistance in order to keep bodies and souls together. The Senator suggests that these 5,000 people should be given work. He knows in his heart and soul that it is impossible to do that. He talks about the question of economic laws and about unsound structures. Economic conditions have the happy knack of adjusting themselves in other matters than with regard to wages paid to the ordinary workers. We have noticed within recent months how some wonderful financial magnates have been found out owing to the working of economic laws. We have found out that the wonderful people who are running the finances of the world have made a complete mess of it. They have ruined themselves and millions of people. I believe if the law was put strictly into operation these people would be at their proper occupation, breaking stones and with the mark of the broad arrow upon them. We on these benches are not in favour of mere relief. We have always advocated that every man and woman has the right to live. The Almighty created them, and they should get that opportunity. Thanks to the goodness of nature, there is more than sufficient to go round for everybody. There is plenty for all and to spare, but some people, owing to their greed, deny to others the miserable existence that is necessary to keep body and soul together.

This Bill proposes that we should act as Christians, and that we should not allow people to be hungry in a land that is full of food. We have more food than we can sell. There is plenty for all, and yet there are, according to the responsible authorities, 5,000 in Dublin who are not in a position to earn the price of food to keep themselves and their families as they ought to be kept. Because of that, and because of the conditions that have been brought about by the system of which Senator Sir John Keane is such a tremendous advocate, we find that everything is all wrong and that there is necessity for a relief Bill such as this. We do not ask for relief. We believe that useful employment could be found for everybody prepared to do useful work on behalf of the community. Because that is not being done we believe the only alternative that presents itself and that ought to be put into operation is that when people are unable to find employment to provide the necessaries of life for their families we as Christians should come to their assistance. This Bill, as an emergency measure, proposes that power shall be given to the local authorities in Dublin to do what has been done by other local authorities. Senator Sir John Keane suggests that we should send them all to break stones. If we do that then we will have to relieve the stone-breakers, for they will all become unemployed and we will have to relieve them. Carry that to its logical conclusion, and the professional men will have to be relieved by the rates.

A Senator

Put them breaking stones.

Mr. Farren

Some of them would not know how to break stones though they can break hearts all right. As I have said, if the amendment were carried it would be impossible to put what it proposes into operation.

Miss Browne

Is not Senator Sir John Keane's amendment only to change the word "may" to "shall?" There is already a provision to provide work. It is all a question between "may" and "shall."

Cathaoirleach

There is a great deal of difference between "may" and "shall."

Mr. Johnson

Senator Sir John Keane has not told us how the applicant for relief who is to do stone-breaking, oakum picking, working the water wheel or other work of that kind, is going to seek employment while he is doing that work, and we are presuming that 90, 95, or probably 99 per cent. are men who would be glad to work if work were available. If the able-bodied applicant receiving relief is to be put into the stone-yard to break stones, how is he to seek work? That is one of the dilemmas that has always faced the stone-yard proposition. I think that the answer to Senator Sir John Keane can be found in the Report of the Poor Law Commission of 1836, which stated: "The difficulty in Ireland is not to make the able-bodied look for employment, but to find it profitably for the many who seek it.... We see that the labouring class are eager for work, but work is not for them, and that they are, therefore, and not from any fault of their own, in permanent want.... Our conviction is that the able-bodied in general and their families would endure any misery rather than make a workhouse their domicile.... If it (i.e., the workhouse system) were established we are persuaded that it would be regarded by the bulk of the population as a stratagem for debarring them of that right to employment and support with which the law professes to invest them." Notwithstanding the recommendations of that Report, the workhouse system was established. We have been endeavouring to get away from it and its ill-effects, but the Senator desires to run counter to the sentiments of the Irish people since 1836.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Sections 4, 5, and 6 put and agreed to.

Mr. Hooper

I move:

New section. Before Section 7 to insert a new section as follows:—

7. There shall be raised in the portion of the Dublin Union specified in sub-section (1) (b) of Section 6 of this Act and in each of the Unions other than the Dublin Union to which this Act applies a special and separate rate of sixpence in the pound of the ratable valuation of such portion of the Dublin Union and of such Unions respectively and the proceeds of such rates shall be paid to the board of guardians of the Dublin Union as contributions to the cost of the relief under this Act of the destitute poor within the area specified in sub-section (1) (b) of Section 6 of this Act and shall be applied accordingly.

My object is to secure a more equitable distribution of this exceedingly heavy burden that is being placed by this Bill upon the Dublin community, that is, a more equitable distribution between the ratepayers of the central portion of the metropolitan area and those living in the outlying districts of the county. As the House is aware, the Bill divides the city and the county of Dublin into four areas for the purpose of this special relief. The Dublin Union, as it has existed up to now, is split into two portions, one consisting of the city proper and the townships of Rathmines and Pembroke, and the other consisting of those parts of the Dublin Union lying outside that central area. There is, in addition, the Union of Rathdown on the south and the south-east, and the Union of Balrothery on the north. The Bill provides that in each of these areas the cost of this special relief shall be borne by the ratepayers within the borders of the area. Normally, that would seem to be a perfectly fair arrangement, but we are dealing here with an abnormal situation in so far as it relates to the central area. It is an accepted fact that the vast bulk of the unemployment that is being dealt with under this Bill exists in the central area, and a comparatively small portion of it outside.

One of our difficulties in dealing with this matter is the absence of reliable figures. The Minister will not even make an estimate of the probable increase in the rates. We have got an estimate from one of the City Commissioners, but the Minister repudiates that, so that we are more or less in the dark, and we must make our own calculations as to the size and the distribution of the problem. But I think anyone who knows Dublin City and County will hardly dispute the fact that at least four-fifths of this problem, and probably 85 to 90 per cent. is concentrated in what I call the central area of the city and Rathmines and Pembroke, and the remaining portion of it is distributed over the three other areas which I have mentioned. I think the result of that will be that a crushing burden will be thrown on the ratepayers in the central area, and a very light burden upon those who live outside it, and it is my purpose to try to redistribute that burden. As things stand now, the proposed arrangement appears to me to be most inequitable on several grounds. It must be recognised that the unemployment problem in the central area of Dublin is not purely a problem arising out of that area itself; it is, to a large extent, a problem of the County Dublin, and to a lesser extent a problem of the rest of the country, because, as we know, Dublin absorbs, and has continually absorbed, large numbers of unemployed from other parts of the country who come here looking for work. When they find that there is no employment in their own districts—and it is easy to see when there is none and no prospect of employment—they come to Dublin where, if there is a great deal of unemployment already and thousands looking for jobs, there is always the hope that the man coming in may be a lucky one. There is always some kind of work in Dublin, and if one is lucky one may get work. That is applicable to the county of Dublin, which is near the city, and the city draws people in.

That is one reason why I say that the proposed arrangement is inequitable. Another is this, that many thousands of the people who draw their incomes from Dublin live outside it. It is hard to calculate the number, but it certainly runs into many thousands. Although their obligation to their fellow-citizens is as great as the obligation of those who live within the central area, still they escape under this Bill with a very small proportion of the burden. That ought to be corrected. Perhaps I will enforce my point if I give a few illustrations by way of contrast. Let me take the case of two business men, having premises in the central part of the city, say in O'Connell Street. One of them lives at Clontarf, which is within the city boundary, and the other lives at Howth, which is a few miles further out. The man who lives in Clontarf has to bear his full share of this burden in respect of his business premises, and he has also to bear his full share in respect of his residence. The man who lives in Howth has to bear his full share of it in respect of his business premises, but only a very slight portion of it in respect of his residence at Howth.

It has been calculated, although, of course, I cannot vouch for the figure, that this will cost in Dublin an additional rate of anything from 2/- to 4/6. I have not seen any estimate that has put the figure at less than 2/-. I think the Minister in one speech did rather hint at 2/6, but we know that Commissioner O'Dwyer put it as high as 4/6. I am not tying myself to any of these figures; I am merely committing myself to the statement that it will be very big—certainly more than 2/-. But in the case of a man living in Howth, or in any other outlying district, it will probably not mean a quarter or a fifth of that. Let us take the case of two solicitors living in Dublin, one of them having a solicitor's office somewhere in the centre of the city. He pays perhaps a couple of pounds a week for it, including rates. When his day's work is done, he gets into his motor-car, which is probably parked on O'Connell Bridge or at some of the other parking places in the city, and he drives off to his residence in the country. His only contribution to this problem in Dublin is that which he makes in his rent, which is inclusive of rates. The other man, with an office perhaps on the next floor to him, lives at Sydney Parade. He has also to pay his proportion of the rates in respect of his office, while at Sydney Parade he has to pay his full proportion of the burden for the central area. There are two striking differences there. Let me take the case of two civil servants, probably sitting opposite each other at a table in Merrion Street. One lives at Rathmines, the other at Dalkey. The man who lives at Rathmines has to pay his full share of this impost, but the man living at Dalkey pays nothing except what he pays in respect of such relief as may arise in the Dalkey area. There is no necessity to labour this. It is a very old story and the inequality is glaring, so much so, that I am surprised the Minister has not made some attempt to deal with it in the Bill.

I wish it was possible to make all those people who draw their incomes from the city and who live outside pay their full share, as the people who live within the central area do, but I recognise that it is not possible. The only way in which that would be possible would be to extend this charge to the whole county, to make it a county-at-large charge, so that it would not only fall on the people who travel to and from the city each day—I think they call them commuters in America—but also upon the people who live in these areas outside the city but who do not directly draw their incomes from the city, as the commuters do. There are shopkeepers outside the city who do not directly draw their incomes from the city; there are lodginghouse-keepers, there are artisans, there are farmers, and if one were to make this a county-at-large charge, which would be only fair to the commuter class, it would be unfair, I think, to this other class, the members of which do not draw their incomes directly from the city. But that does not mean that we should allow these town workers to escape their fair share altogether, and I say that the right way to make them liable is to ask them to pay a contributory rate, which I suggest should be 6d. in the £. Of course, that would also have to be borne by the people who do not draw their incomes directly from the city, but still I do not think it would be an unfair thing to ask of them, because there is hardly anyone in these outlying areas who does not, at least indirectly, draw benefit from his proximity to the city. All these places are more or less dependent on the city. If it were not for the city the coast towns would really be villages, and there is hardly anyone in these areas that does not indirectly derive benefit from their closeness to the city. The shopkeepers out there live largely upon the people who live there but who derive their incomes from the city, the artisans build houses for them and the lodginghouse-keepers are maintained by them.

The one class that might have a grievance under this proposal is the farming class, but let us take the problem of the farming class there. I have looked into the population figures for these areas and I have found that the number of people engaged in agricultural occupations in these outlying districts represents less than nine per cent. of the total population of the districts. It will be said that that nine per cent. derives no benefit from the city. I agree that the farming community of County Dublin does not now have the same advantage in respect of the Dublin markets as it used to have; the extension of transport facilities has brought in farmers from other counties to the Dublin markets, where they are able to compete with the Dublin farmer better than they were ever able to do before. But to ask me to believe that the farmer in County Dublin derives no benefit from his proximity to the city is to ask me to believe something which I cannot believe. Even if it were true that they did not derive benefit from that proximity, if it is just to ask the other 91 per cent. of the population in these districts to pay this contribution to Dublin in this great social emergency, is it right that the Oireachtas should be precluded from asking that 91 per cent. to come along and bear its fair share merely because it will hit less than 9 per cent. who say that they are not benefited, but who I hold are benefited?

This 6d. in the £ that I propose these people should be asked to bear will not be a big thing in comparison with what the city will have to shoulder.

In the outlying districts the rate in respect of this relief will probably not exceed fourpence, fivepence, sixpence, or sevenpence in the £. Perhaps it might come to ninepence in the £. I do not know. No one knows. Let us assume that it is sixpence. The additional sixpence would make one shilling in the £, which for these people in normal times would be a large amount; but, on the other hand, when you have the people in Dublin having to pay two shillings, three shillings, or perhaps four shillings in the £ it would not be an excessive amount to be paid by the people outside. It would bring in about £14,500 yearly, not a large contribution by any means when compared with the city, where it is expected the impost will come to anything from £200,000 to perhaps £250,000 a year. Still it is a substantial contribution when such a figure is being faced by the city and one which I venture to ask the House to provide that these people should give. There is only one other point that I wish to explain and that was the one made by Senator Byrne as to the holding up of the relief to the poor. The Minister asked us to discuss these amendments on their merits. I am glad he has done so and I agree that that is the right course, but if that consideration is introduced I will have something to say when I come to reply.

Sir Walter Nugent

I second. The amendment is a very moderate one. I would like to explain to the House what the position is at present under the Bill. It is this, that the three areas named Dublin, Pembroke, and Rathmines have not only to bear their proportion of the increased levy, but they also have to bear that proportion which will be borne by the rest of the County Dublin, if it were applied the same as in other counties. Surely that does not seem to be a fair proposition. Personally, I would have preferred giving the relief in another way; I would have preferred giving relief by having certain excesses over a fixed computed increase in the rate paid out of the Central Fund, but I know that it would not be in order to move such an amendment. Therefore, I am accepting the suggestion in the amendment moved by Senator Hooper. What is the amount involved? Being a farmer and having sympathy with farmers, I dislike placing any further burden on them, because I know what a hard lot theirs is, and how hard it is to make ends meet. But the total sum which would be levied on a computation of sixpence in the £ over these districts would not exceed £6,000. That is not a very large sum, but it would be some small relief. I do not think it at all meets the case, but nevertheless it indicates what we all feel, that these three areas are being unfairly treated. As the Senator pointed out, the rate in Dublin is a very high rate.

It is so high that if it was increased by twopence-halfpenny in the pound, it would bring it up to the level of the highest borough rate in Ireland, that is in Waterford where this rate is 5/2 in the pound. I only mention that in passing to show that these townships have to bear a considerable burden. As the Seanad is aware there are many ratepayers in the townships who are not well off, but the increased rate, the amount of which is unknown, will be very severe on them. A proposal was put forward by business men to obtain relief from the Central Fund, but it was not successful. We feel that we would not be doing our duty if we did not point out what a severe burden is being placed on them for some unknown reason except that you believe they are able to bear it. I shall vote for the amendment.

Mr. Counihan

I wish to oppose the amendment. I believe it would be more sensible for Senator Hooper to propose that this rate should be put on the whole country than on County Dublin. Proximity to the city is of very little advantage to farmers. With the present transport methods any advantage which County Dublin farmers have from proximity to the city is counterbalanced by the very high rate of wages and by rates ruling in County Dublin. As Senator Butler says, if it is put on County Dublin why not put it on County Kildare, County Meath and County Wicklow? There are very large tracts of these counties more convenient to the City of Dublin than portions of County Dublin. It is not proposed to include these counties in the sixpenny rate. This is an audacious proposal and I hope the House will reject it. From discussions I had in the Lobby I have come to the conclusion that the Seanad is very largely composed of Senators with too much of an urban or a city outlook. That is not good from the national point of view, especially in an agricultural country. I strongly oppose the amendment. I do not think Senator Hooper has made any case which requires to be met by any member of the House.

Mr. Comyn

I have great sympathy with anyone who tries to relieve the people of Dublin from the great burden of the rates, more especially the traders and small shopkeepers. I wonder whether Senator Hooper's suggestion could be worked out at present. There is, however, another matter to which I would like to call the attention of the Minister. There are within the City of Dublin very large properties that are exempt from rate. I do not mean charitable institutions or religious houses, but very valuable properties that are exempt from rate on the alleged ground that they are public institutions. Such properties are not exempt from rate in England. They were subjected to rate by a decision in the Liverpool docks case. The same kind of properties is exempt from rate by a different and contrary decision in Ireland in the Derry case. I have not the rate book before me and, therefore, I do not wish at this moment to say much on the subject. But I would suggest to the Minister that if he is casting about for some method of relieving the shopkeepers of Dublin he will find it within the boundaries of the city itself.

Mr. Barrington

I oppose this amendment, and I do so because it seems to me so essentially unfair and unjust. The Senator proposes that the immediate districts around Dublin should become liable to a rate of sixpence in the pound for the relief of Dublin.

His argument was that a good many of the people there derive their incomes from Dublin. He seems to forget that there are a good many people living there who do not derive any benefit from Dublin. He completely overlooked the fact that these people have to bear their own burdens and will have to pay for the relief of their own poor.

Mr. Hooper

I said that. I made that clear.

Mr. Barrington

In addition he suggests that they should be asked to pay sixpence in the £ for the relief of the poor in Dublin. I do not know how it was made clear.

Mr. Hooper

I said at the beginning that this was an additional rate to what they would have to pay, an addition to the small proportion of the burden they would have to bear in their own districts.

Mr. Barrington

That is the very thing I object to.

Mr. Hooper

The Senator suggested that I had ignored that.

Mr. Barrington

No, I suggested that the proposal made by the Senator involved that, and I think it is a very unjust thing. There are many people who, owing to the circumstances of the country, have had to come and live there who do not derive any benefit from Dublin. To place on these people any addition to the burden of maintaining their own poor, to make them contribute sixpence in the £ to relieve Dublin is, to my mind, unfair, and in the interests of these people I must urge that this proposal be not accepted.

Mr. Dowdall

Senator Counihan stated that from what he had heard in the Lobby the urban mind was strongly reflected in the Seanad. From what we have heard in the Seanad the suburban mind is very strongly reflected in it.

I think Senator Hooper has made a case for his proposal. It is quite clear that those who live in the county and in the suburban areas of Dublin get practically all the advantages that the city of Dublin offers in the matter of facilities for carrying on their trade or profession. It is only fair in the circumstances that they should shoulder a reasonable proportion of the burden that is being put on the city under this Bill.

Mr. Farren

I am in agreement and in sympathy with the object sought to be acheived by the amendment, but I do not believe that the method proposed is the proper one to bring about the results desired. I agree something ought to be done to make people who run small offices in Dublin and do a big business in the city, people who avail of all the advantages which the city offers and live in the suburbs, should be made contribute something towards the relief of the unemployment problem in the city. Under the original Bill that was drafted in connection with this question of poor relief, it was sought to make the whole of the County Dublin one area of charge. Owing largely to representations that were made by people residing in the agricultural areas in the county it was found impossible to carry that proposal into effect. If, instead of the method that he proposes in his amendment, Senator Hooper had endeavoured to amend the areas of charge, it would, I think, be a more just way of achieving what he seeks. We must face ing to this fact that the people in the areas outside the city who would be affected by Senator Hooper's amendment will have to look after their own needy poor in their districts. In addition, they will have to pay the equivalent of sixpence in the £ on their valuations towards the relief of the poor in the city. I think they ought to be made pay something, but I suggest that the method outlined in the amendment is the wrong way to do it.

I think that the districts ought not to have been split up in the manner that they have. I think there ought to have been two areas (1) embracing the district from the city to Dalkey and to Howth, and (2) the agricultural areas outside those boundaries. That, of course, cannot be done now. We heard a good deal of talk from Senator Comyn and others about coming to the relief of the poor shopkeepers. There was also a good deal of talk as regards business men having to foot the bill in connection with this. I say that is not correct. In my opinion the people who ultimately will have to bear the cost of this are the residents of Dublin, and particularly those living in tenement areas.

Mr. Comyn

My point is that there are places exempt which ought not to have been.

Mr. Farren

In my opinion it is the poor, some of the people getting relief under this Bill, who ultimately will have to pay for the cost of relieving themselves. Why I say that is because all other classes practically can pass the burden on to somebody else, but the poor cannot. The shopkeeper and the manufacturer or the farmer, if you like, can pass on the burden that will fall on him, but the unfortunate people living in the tenement areas in the city will have no one to pass it on to and must bear it themselves. It is time, I think, that we ceased talking about business and industry having to bear the cost of this. We will all have to pay our share of it. I will have to pay my share of it, though I can less afford to do so than many other members of the House. The fact at any rate is that the poor are there and they must be relieved. The position is that we ought to face up to our responsibilities and do our best to relieve them to the best of our ability.

General Mulcahy

Senators will remember that the original Bill dealing with this matter, which passed through the Seanad; comprised three areas; the area of the Guardians of Balrothery, the area of the Guardians of Rathdown and the Dublin Union area embracing the city, Rathmines and Pembroke Urban Districts, as well as the rural area consisting of North and South Dublin and Celbridge. Therefore, the original Bill passed through the Seanad contemplated that the Guardians of Balrothery and Rathdown would shoulder their own burden, and that the burden on Dublin City and the rural districts around it would be borne by these areas at a flat rate. The representatives of the county objected to this burden being put upon them. The matter was opened for discussion by the Department of Local Government between the bodies in the city and county of Dublin with a view to seeing whether a joint scheme could not be formed to settle this particular matter and obviate the necessity for introducing legislation. These bodies failed to come to agreement on that.

In the report that was made by the representatives of the County Dublin and the Dublin Commissioners it was asked that in so far as the Balrothery area was concerned that fifty per cent. of the cost would be made a national charge. The same suggestion was made in respect of Rathdown Union and of the Dublin Union. That proposal was not entertained by the Executive Council for reasons that I am satisfied were good and sound. The arrangement in the original Bill passed by the Seanad by which the Guardians of Balrothery were made responsible for their own charge is in this Bill, and the same has happened with regard to the area administered by the Rathdown Guardians.

Taking into consideration the fact that the areas of North Dublin Rural, Celbridge, and South Dublin Rural were rural areas of Dublin in the sense that the Balrothery area was, I considered, simply because it had been joined in with Dublin for normal poor law charges, that it would be unfair to saddle that particular rural area of Dublin with portion of the alleged big burden that is being placed upon the city of Dublin when other rural areas around the city were not being so charged. We, therefore, agreed to divide the area comprised in the Dublin Union into a rural and into a city area. In the action that we took in that direction we were impelled by the fact that we were placing before the Oireachtas a Bill dealing with the future local government of the city and county of Dublin, which sets out a new city area. It comprises the present Dublin County Borough with Rathmines and Pembroke as a new county brough area, with one or two small areas put in, leaving the rest of the county as an area which, when the necessary legislation has been passed, will automatically become one area of charge for poor law purposes. In setting up proposals like that consideration was given to this, that as regards any possible burden arising out of the rearrangement there should be no such thing as discrimination as between two rural districts, and for that reason the present divisions were made. Senator Sir Walter Nugent suggests that what we propose here is different to what exists in the case of other counties, or in the case of Cork, Waterford or Limerick. That is not so. The only difference is that, because you have three areas at the present moment in the County Dublin which are separate areas of charge for poor law purposes, we are leaving them there. If there is a unit area of charge comprising Waterford City and Waterford County in one case, and if there is another unit area of charge comprising the city of Cork and part of the county of Cork, the reason is that that was done by agreement between the county council on the one side, and the county borough council on the other.

In Limerick that agreement was not come to, and Limerick City bears its own poor law charges the same as the city and county of Dublin has to bear its own charges for this class of relief. In Dublin we are in the same position as other parts of the country. The County Council and the Commissioners failed to come to an agreement as regards a joint scheme. The Minister for Local Government at the time would have been glad to have legislative power that would have enabled him to enforce a joint scheme in the case of the city and the county of Limerick. There is a great difference between a city of the size of Limerick and a city of the size of Dublin, including Rathmines and Pembroke, with a population of 390,000. At this particular stage of our knowledge I suggest that Dublin City might very well stand on its own feet and shoulder its own burdens, and examine clearly and precisely the situation. There are additional reasons for that. The number of persons in receipt of home assistance at the end of the year 1927-28 per one thousand of the population has been figured out in the different counties. We find that the highest number is 51.1 per one thousand persons in receipt of home assistance. That occurs in Kildare and in Rathdown. There is this difference with the Kildare numbers, I take it that the numbers there are those of able-bodied persons who are in receipt of outdoor relief, so we have the situation that in Rathdown Union we have the highest number of persons per thousand of the population in receipt of home assistance. It differs from the rest of the country in this, that able-bodied persons are not given outdoor relief there.

Coming to Balrothery, the number of persons per thousand in receipt of home assistance is 33.7. If we except Kildare and Rathdown, there are only two other places in the country, one the city of Limerick and the other the city and county of Waterford, that have a higher number of persons in receipt of outdoor relief than Balrothery, though Balrothery differs in this respect, that the able-bodied poor are not catered for there. The figure for Dublin is 15.6 per one thousand as against 51.1 in Rathdown and 33.7 in Balrothery. In face of these figures I do not know how much of this burden is going to be put on Rathdown and Balrothery, but I do suggest there is a case for accepting my point of view, that if the problem of Dublin is going to be critically and efficiently examined Dublin should have its own machinery and face its own problem in the light of the facts, just as every other county has to face its own problem and bear its own burden for this class of relief. If we look for other people to carry the burden, then there is going to be irresponsibility in the matter.

Senator Sir Walter Nugent suggests that the nation might bear a part of the cost of this relief. I question that. The present expenditure in the city of Dublin in poor law relief amounts to a rate of 2s. 10d., in Cork 3s. 1d., in Waterford 3s. 11d., and in Limerick 8s. If the Limerick people are going to be relieved in respect of poor relief from the national funds, once they got above the rate of 2s. 6d. I think their rate might be extended with a lavish hand, and go from 8s. to 10s., because they would feel that after all it was going to come out of the taxpayers' pockets and not out of the pockets of the people of Limerick. We require to know much more as to where we stand in this particular matter before we start by spreading the charge over the shoulders of other people. Dublin has not much to complain of. Reference has been made to England. I think Senators will find that the cost of poor relief in England has gone up since 1913 from £11,000,000 to £44,000,000, an increase of 400 per cent. Here it has gone up from £1,000,000 to £1,500,000, an increase of 50 per cent. Our unemployment insurance is based on insurance. I came across a business person in Dublin who did not know that uncovenanted benefit was not being paid for in the unemployment insurance scheme in the Free State. Some business people do not know that, whereas for the last four years unconvenanted benefit has been paid to an enormous extent in England, and the unemployment insurance scheme is not on the basis of insurance. We have it on the basis here, so that we are in the position that our unemployment insurance is on a proper actuarial basis.

I do not think we have to look to the other side for our models as to the way we should go about doing our business. I think the most satisfactory way of dealing with this problem, even for the ratepayers of Dublin, is to have them face their own problems and shoulder their own burdens until we know where we stand. If any other changes are to be brought about they have to be carefully examined. As to people who work inside the city and who live outside of it, all that can be said is that they get a licence to work inside the city, or something like that. We should not confuse the areas of charge for local government by the consideration that a person who works here does not live here. Some other method will have to be adopted than one of confusing the finances of our local government.

Mr. Hooper

I am sorry the Minister did not approve of the amendment, and more particularly because of the line of argument he adopted. There was one strong point, I admit, in his reply when he quoted the figures showing the amount spent in ordinary relief in places like Rathdown and Balrothery. The Minister admitted that there it was ordinary outdoor relief. He did not show what the expenditure of this kind to relieve the able-bodied unemployed would be. It seemed to me his reply was mainly based on grounds of expediency. He spoke of objections taken by representatives of the rural areas in the early stages of this measure. It seemed the representatives of the rural areas had only to say "no," and the Minister surrendered. I do not know what representation the city had there. I presume the City Commissioners were present at the discussions, but I wonder would he be quite so acquiescent in the demands of the rural representatives if the citizens of Dublin had been a little more active in their own defence than they were? Unfortunately they are not in the position now to be as vocal as they used to be. All that the Minister has said does not seem to me to be any answer at all to the fact that in the central area of Dublin, including Rathmines and Pembroke, the impost will run from anything from 2/- to 4/- in the £. We do not know what it will be. The impost on the outer portions is going to be small. The Minister has not suggested it would be anything like the figures I have mentioned. When a large portion of the people who live in the outer areas draw their income from Dublin, I say that this disproportion is unfair. I hope the House will show that it shares that opinion when deciding on this amendment.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 24.

Tá

• Michael Comyn, K.C.
• Joseph Connolly.
• J.C. Dowdall.
• Michael Fanning.
• P.J. Hooper.
• Thomas Johnson.
• Cornelius Kennedy.
• Francis MacGuinness.
• Sir Walter Nugent.
• Joseph O'Doherty.
• L. O'Neill.
• Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.

Níl

• William Barrington.
• Sir Edward Bellingham.
• Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
• Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
• Miss Kathleen Browne.
• R.A. Butler.
• Alfred Byrne
• Mrs. Costello.
• John C. Counihan.
• William Cummins.
• The Countess of Desart.
• Michael Duffy.
• Sir John Purser Griffith.
• Patrick W. Kenny.
• Thomas Linehan.
• James MacKean.
• John MacLoughlin.
• Seán Milroy.
• Joseph O'Connor.
• John T. O'Farrell.
• M.F. O'Hanlon.
• Bernard O'Rourke.
• Séumas Robinson.
• Thomas Toal.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 37 and the Title put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

The Seanad went out of Committee.

Bill reported.

Mr. A. Byrne

I move:

"That the Standing Orders be suspended for the purpose of enabling the remaining stages of the Poor Relief (Dublin) Bill, 1929, to be taken to-day."

Mr. Fanning

I second.

Question put and agreed to.