Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Jun 1937

Vol. 67 No. 13

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Destitution in County Tipperary.

asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if his attention has been called to statements made to the effect that in the town of Nenagh on Saturday, May 8th, two families, one a man, his wife and seven children, the other a man, his wife and five children, found themselves at 9 p.m. destitute; that they were refused assistance by the relieving officer, but were given tickets for the county home 25 miles away; if he has made any investigations in the matter; were the facts in accordance with the statements; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of such a thing and to ensure that such cases are not left unprovided for.

My attention has been called to the statements referred to by the Deputy. I called for a report on the matter and I find the statements do not accurately represent the facts, and that the persons applying for assistance were not genuine cases of destitution. The facts are as follows:—

1. The incident took place at Nenagh on the 1st May, not on the 8th May.

2. The Superintendent Assistance Officer was approached by a number of able-bodied men who were at the time employed by the county council on a temporary employment scheme. The men demanded home assistance on the plea of destitution. In view of the fact that the men were working at the time and considering that they were given provisional assistance during the previous week while awaiting payment from the county council, the Superintendent Assistance Officer could not regard them as destitute persons and consequently he refused assistance, explaining to them that they should approach the county council who was employing them.

3. After consultation amongst themselves, in the course of which one of the men remarked "we will torment him anyway," the men demanded tickets for admission to the county home. This, the Superintendent Assistance Officer also refused for the same reason. Later in the day the wives of two of the men approached the local assistance officer and asked for tickets for admission to the county home. The assistance officer did not consider the applicants destitute, but he issued the tickets applied for as he considered he should do so when the applicants themselves alleged destitution. Neither of the women asked to be conveyed to the county home.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the report he has read out is not an accurate report? Is he further aware that these men were employed by the county council and had received up to that time, May 1, no payment whatever and were destitute? They were from 12.30 that day until 8.30 or 9 p.m. seeking assistance from the assistance officer and it was refused, but finally, not at their request, he wrote out tickets for the county home in order to get rid of them. I have the tickets here.

I am aware that the Deputy's version is not in accordance with facts.

The Parliamentary Secretary will find when he has sifted the matter, if he does sift it, after an impartial inquiry that my statement is strictly in accordance with facts.

Mr. Ryan

Is it possible that the Parliamentary Secretary has not investigated the facts?

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how it happened that men who were destitute, and who got provisional relief from the assistance officer one week, and in the meantime received no payment of any kind, can be regarded as not being destitute the following week, and therefore do not get provisional relief from the assistance officer?

For the reason that payments by the county council are fortnightly payments. The home assistance the applicants got was in respect of the first week of their employment, when no payment was made by the county council. The incident referred to in the question occurred on the night that they had been paid for the fortnight's employment.

The Parliamentary Secretary does not deny that the men had received no payment of any kind, and that there was no prospect of getting payment of any kind the second week.

That is not so at all. They had received no payment at the end of the first week, and got provisional home assistance. At the end of the second week, when home assistance had been refused, they had received payment for the fortnight's work.

That is untrue. The answer of the Parliamentary Secretary is so unsatisfactory that I give notice that I will raise this matter on the adjournment.

Barr
Roinn