asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware of the damage caused by itinerants in the Kanturk area, County Cork; and what action he proposes to take to remedy the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Cork Itinerant Damage.
32.
The Garda have informed me that it is customary for itinerants to come to Kanturk for the winter months and that this year there has been a marked increase in their numbers. I am informed that of the 13 itinerant families who arrived this winter, six have now moved and that a further four are expected to move shortly.
Many complaints have been received by the Garda in relation to the itinerants. Since 1st October last, 68 prosecutions for summary offences were brought against itinerants and in addition six itinerants were charged with indicatable crimes in the same period.
The Garda investigated all complaints made in relation to alleged offences by itinerants and, where these complaints were well founded, prosecutions were brought. Such causes of complaint as trespass and damage to fences, however, are civil matters.
I can assure the Deputy that the Garda are fully aware of their responsibilities in this difficult matter and that where offences are detected they have initiated and will initiate prosecutions.
Could I ask the Minister does he approve of this disgraceful harrying of these unfortunate people?
Harrying of whom?
Does the Minister approve of the 68 prosecutions?
If 68 offences were committed I approve of 68 prosecutions being brought.
What kind of offences were committed?
Burglary, house-breaking, larceny, malicious damage, unlawful taking of ten different mechanically propelled vehicles. These were charges brought in the last few weeks against three itinerants alone.
Sixty-eight of them.
At Kanturk District Court on 3rd March, 1971, there were 103 charges. Sixty-eight charges were summary and the rest were indictable.
Why does it happen that this kind of thing happened in Kanturk when there are many more itinerants around this city and I do not see any reason at all for charging them?
Apparently there were grounds for charging them at Kanturk.
The Minister has told us of a certain number of charges. Could we know the outcome of these charges?
That is a separate question.
There were convictions in 103 charges heard at Kanturk Court on 3rd March, 1971.
May I ask the Minister the total number of persons involved in relation to those charges?
In relation to the charges heard on 3rd March there were three persons involved, but there were eight others in respect of other charges. There were 14 in 1970, and eight in 1971.
In view of the fact that there were three persons involved and only 14 persons in the whole of the year 1970, would the Minister not agree that by no stretch of the imagination does this warrant a formal parliamentary question?
The matter of putting down a question is not a matter for me.