asked the Minister for Local Government whether, in the Dublin Union, now being administered by Commissioners appointed by him, outdoor relief has been refused to Mrs. Lyons, a widow with two children, both dependent upon her, on the ground that one child is fifteen (15) years of age, and whether this refusal is in accordance with the obligation imposed by statute (10 Vic., cap. 31) to make provision for the due relief of destitute widows having two or more legitimate children dependent upon them.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - DUBLIN OUTDOOR RELIEF CASE.
TOMAS MAC EOIN
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.
The statute leaves it to the guardians to decide whether the provision for relief shall be made in or out of the workhouse. The Commissioners are now in the same position as the guardians in that respect. I am prohibited by Section 3 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838, from interfering in particular cases for the purpose of ordering relief.
Is the Minister not in a position to decide whether 15 years is to be the maximum age for children?
The practice heretofore has always been to regard 15 years as the maximum age.
That has been the practice, but is it not in the power of the Minister or Poor Law Commissioners to take the facts into consideration and the effect of this kind of Order upon the lives of the poor?
In cases where amalgamation schemes have been put into operation it is possible to depart from that regular practice, but the County Dublin is one of the few places where the amalgamation scheme has not been put into operation, and we have no power to do this until that goes through.
Are we to understand that that is the only obstacle in the way of the Minister to altering this practice?
I could not pronounce definitely on that. The legal position is complicated, and I would want notice of that question.