OUTDOOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 1 August 1898)

§ MR. DILLON
I wish to draw the attention of the House to this, that, while professing to be drawn on exactly the same lines, and while apparently drawn, on the same lines as previous Bills of a similar character, it appears to me to introduce a totally new principle, because on all previous occasions of exceptional distress in the West of Ireland, a Bill of this character was introduced, but this Bill has reference only, or the Bills introduced upon this occasion have reference only to the relief of distress given out in the ordinary way, but the Bill authorises or gives an indemnity to 764 the guardians, in respect of relief of distress, of outdoor relief, given in cases in which it would not be legal to give it under the poor law of Ireland as it at present stands. But on all these previous occasions, in addition to the extraordinary relief of distress, they were managed under a totally different administration, and paid for from different funds in the way of relief works, such as the Executive Government found it necessary to establish in those districts. But now, as far as I understand it—and I failed on the last occasion to get any definite statement from the Attorney General for Ireland on this matter—in the present instance this Bill proposes to give an indemnity to the guardians, not only for the relief which they have been obliged to give simply as outdoor relief, but also to give them an indemnity for that proportion of the cost of relief works which the present Chief Secretary proposes to throw upon the rates. If I am correctly informed—and, of course, the Attorney General will set me right at once if I am wrong—under the law as it stands, the guardians in the West of Ireland have no power to throw upon the rates in their districts any part of the cost of their relief works. Is that so?

§ MR. ATKINSON
Certainly, that is so.

§ MR. DILLON
That is exactly my point, and that is the ordinary purpose of an indemnity Bill of this kind. But, in addition to that, we have the cost of the relief works, and, as I understand the law, they have no power to institute or pay the wages of the men on the relief works. In previous cases, when relief works were instituted, they were instituted under the authority of the Executive Government, and the whole cost of those relief works were paid out of some special fund supplied by the Treasury or the Church fund, and they were not borne by the rates. But in this Bill it is intended not only to cover the outdoor relief given to occupants of more than a quarter of an acre of land, but it is intended to make it legal, and clear the way for the Chief Secretary to throw upon these western boards of guardians that proportion, and we do not know what proportion of the cost of the relief works, which he has described as a new policy in the West of Ireland in the present year. Now, I have prepared a 765 set of figures showing the condition of one of the unions in the West of Ireland, in order to show what appears to me to be a great injustice. These figures have reference to the Unions of Clifden in the county of Galway, where the rates are at present enormously high. The poor rate alone, according to the rate struck this year, varies from 2s. 6d. in the £ in this very poor union, up to 5s., 6s., 5s. 6d., 5s., 4s. 6d., 6s., and 5s. in the various divisions of the union. Now, in consequence of the great distress in the present year the amount of outdoor relief has been enormously increased as compared with last year. I have here the various figures to the 13th April, and I only extract one or two of the figures ending the 6th March this year, when the amount was £113, as against £6 18s. 6d. last year. Up to 19th April the amount was £104 9s. 3d., against £6 14s. 3d. in the corresponding period of last year. Now, in the last week, for which I have the figures ending the 13th April, it was £136, as against £6 6s. 8d. last year. Altogether, up to the middle of April, the amount expended was £1,192 13s., against £80 6s. 11d., which had been expended in the Clifden Union in the corresponding period of last year. Now that shows a terrible burden, of distress, and, of course, that figure has been largely increased, because the relief has been going on to a rather increasing extent. Now, of the above sum of £1,192, £156 has been given as ordinary relief—that is, such relief as would be covered by the provisions of this Bill under the policy which prevailed this year in these western districts. But, in addition to that £156 for ordinary relief, there has been £1,036 13s. 10d. issued under the labour test, which is equally illegal, as I understand it, with the £156 in ordinary relief, and which, therefore, requires the provisions of this Act to indemnify the guardians for having issued it. But, of that £1,036 13s. 10d. spent under the labour tests in relief works, the Government are going to recoup the guardians a certain proportion. The Chief Secretary gave us to understand that it would be about three-quarters, and in some districts more. But assuming that it is three-quarters, that leaves £250, which is the guardians' share, or might be the guardians' share 766 of the labour test, and that added to the other sum for ordinary relief makes a sum of £415 3s. 3d., as against £80 6s. 11d. for the corresponding period of last year. And that additional burden in the rates in the Clifden Union is in an area of terribly exceptional distress, and where the rates already are at an enormous figure, at an average, taking the rates of the whole union, of little short of 9s. in the £. I think the House will admit that that is a heavy rate for a rural district. Under the old system what would happen would be this: that the guardians under this Bill would have received an indemnity for distributing £156 of ordinary outdoor relief, given in cases which, under the ordinary law, they could not have relieved without taking them into the workhouses. But under the new system introduced by the Chief Secretary they are now receiving an indemnity, and are to be required to pay, unless the Chief Secretary has changed his mind, a sum of £415, instead of £156 up to the 30th of April last, I suppose that amount since that time has been very greatly increased. What I want to know from the Attorney General is, am I right in that statement? Does this Bill apply to the share of the cost of the labour tests which it is proposed to throw on to the guardians? If that be the purpose of this Bill, I must confess that it raises in Ireland questions of policy which I shall avail myself of every possible opportunity of opposing. When I asked for a postponement of this question on the Second Reading of the Bill, it was represented as a most innocent Bill, and it was pointed out that if this Bill was not passed the result would be that the guardians would be individually charged, or rather surcharged, with the amounts of relief illegally expended. Well, Sir, that may be technically the law, but I venture to say that no1 Government would attempt to do anything of the sort. This relief has been given under the direction of the Executive Government, and it is absurd to say that the guardians, having broken the law to save the people from starvation, will be surcharged for it. Their only offence is that their have broken the law in obeying the instructions of the Executive Government. Therefore, the idea of surcharging them I dismiss 767 as preposterous. If the Government intend to raise on this Bill the question of a new policy and a new departure, as the Chief Secretary himself describes his present proceedings in the West of Ireland; if they intend to raise this question, they should have raised it at a much earlier period, and not try to smuggle it through, as an absolutely non-contentious Measure. That is the reason why I asked for an opportunity of stating my views on this Bill the other night. Now, I have no desire to prevent the Bill passing into law, and I have not the slightest alarm upon the question of surcharging the guardians, because I do not think that the Government ever dreamt of surcharging them. As a matter of fact, this money has been spent on wages on the relief works, and it has been found by the Government themselves. I do not suppose that the guardians have drawn upon their bank balances. I do not know, but what I assume has happened is, that the wages of the men on the relief works have been found by the Board of Works or some other Government Department, and that they propose as a matter of account to charge against the guardians a certain proportion of the cost of these works, and then compel the guardians to levy a rate in order to pay this money. That is a policy to which I am entirely opposed, and, therefore, I think it is only reasonable to ask from the Attorney General a statement whether that is the intention of the Bill. Of course, subsequently in Committee, I shall have some opportunity of raising the question.

§ MR. ATKINSON
I must say that I think we had ample opportunities of criticising the relief portion of this Measure. The honourable Member says he entirely disapproves of the suggestion that any of the expense of relief should be thrown upon the local guardians, and suggests that it should be paid entirely out of the Imperial Treasury. Indeed, the honourable Member went further. He criticised in unmeasured terms the relief policy of the Government, and prognosticated all sorts of failure and destitution as the result of our policy. Now, the honourable Member is by no means a good prophet, for the guardians in many cases have administered the fund with 768 great zeal and with great sagacity. To-day, every one of these relief funds are closed, and there is no case where distress has not been relieved.

§ MR. DILLON
I deny that.

§ MR. ATKINSON
The exceptions which have been mentioned, where distress is alleged not to have been relieved, have been found to be upon inquiry not sustained. At all events, the relief accounts have been closed, and the boards of guardians have adopted the scheme in most cases with cheerfulness, and have worked with zeal and with a great deal of discrimination, and I may fairly say that in all these cases it has been a marked success. The question of the labour test being applied does not affect the question, because under the law the guardians are not entitled to administer relief to persons occupying more than a certain quantity of land, or who were able-bodied. In cases of this kind the burden of dealing with them is thrown upon the Government, because, hitherto, when the funds have been supplied by the Imperial Treasury, then, as now, an indemnity has been required to indemnify the guardians for having taken illegal action. In these cases public works were established, and labour tests were imposed, and the fact that the money was supplied by the Imperial Treasury did not change the character of the Act, and did not dispense with the necessity of getting an indemnification. The only difference between that and the present occasion is that hitherto in the course adopted the duty has been thrown upon the guardians of making provision for the distress. Hitherto, no doubt, all the funds necessary to deal with exceptional distress have been supplied by the Government, but on the present occasion three-fourths, and in some cases a larger proportion have been supplied by the Government. But in other cases an indemnity Bill is necessary to indemnify the guardians for the illegal action which they have taken. The guardians have given illegal relief to persons who were not entitled to it, and it does not matter whether it was given to labour tests or any other tests. The fact of adopting a test does not alter the illegal character of the Act.

§ MR. DILLON
I understood that the Act did not apply to the relief works which were applied by the Imperial Government themselves.

§ MR. ATKINSON
In some cases the relief works were started and worked by the guardians themselves. I think it is much more desirable to start relief works by the guardians, because they have the advantages of local knowledge and control, but even then the character of it remains the same whether they give relief with or without the labour test, and they adopt the labour test as possibly the best means. The way in which the work has been carried out is this: these relief works have gone to what extent I do not know, and I really cannot say exactly, because the accounts of the relief works have been, so recently closed that the statements have not yet come in. I believe, however, that, taking an approximation, the entire outlay for the relief of distress is somewhat about £50,000 or £60,000, and of that sum between £9,000 and £10,000 will fall upon the guardians in the 11 different unions to which I have referred, who are legally responsible for the whole amount. The guardians have administered the relief to the extent of the whole, but the Government will give about two-thirds of it. Now, I call the honourable Member's attention to the third section of the Bill, which enables the guardians to escape from the liability we have placed upon them, by raising all that may be necessary to meet their contribution on the rates in the present year. They are enabled to borrow money, and so spread the outlay over a number of years, instead of having to raise the whole amount in the present year. They will be enabled to borrow, and thus distribute the cost much more equally upon the ratepayers of this and succeeding years. The honourable Member said that the Government would not dare to surcharge the guardians for this outlay. Well, I am not quite sure that it rests with the Government at all, and I think the Local Government Board officer is bound to surcharge it. It is hardly fair to say that this particular system of relief in Ireland has been a failure. The unions of Swinford, Castlereagh, Galway, and other unions have not raised the objections to which the honourable Member has referred. As I said before, it by no 770 means follows that a hard and fast line has been laid down in each case.

§ MR. DILLON
I may say that I have no intention of opposing the Second Beading of the Bill.