BACK

Carlow County - Ireland Genealogical Projects (IGP TM)

Parliamentary Debates
Parliamentary Debates Dáil Éirann extracts.
For Co Carlow 1927 - 1929
1922 - 1924 1930 - 1935 1940 - 1943
1925 - 1926 1936 - 1939 1950 - 1959
1927 - 1929 1943 - 1949 1830
Dáil Éireann - Volume 18 - 25 January, 1927
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - CO. CARLOW LANDS.
EAMON O DUBHGHAILL EAMON O DUBHGHAILL
15
EAMON O DUBHGHAILL asked the Minister for Lands and Agriculture if he can state the date on which the price was accepted for the lands at Myshall and Kilmaglush on the Brady Estate, Co. Carlow, and what is the price paid per acre for these lands, and whether any of the houses on this estate have been purchased by the Land Commission and, if so, whether he can state which houses.
MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan) MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)
MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan): The offer of the Land Commission for the purchase of the lands of Myshall and Kilmaglush including Myshall house and out-offices, was accepted by the owner on the 18th September
Dáil Éireann - Volume 18 - 15 February, 1927
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - CARLOW BEET SUGAR FACTORY.
TOMAS MAC EOIN TOMAS MAC EOIN
TOMAS MAC EOIN asked the Minister for Finance whether any agreement was made with Messrs. Lippens prior to 16th June, 1925, in respect to the erection of a Beet Sugar Factory, and the amount to be given by way of subsidy; if so, will he state the general import of the agreement and lay on the Table of the Dáil a copy of same; whether any agreement was made with Messrs. Lippens or the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company subsequent to the 16th June, 1925 (the date of the Second Reading of the Beet Sugar (Subsidy) Bill, 1925); if so, will he state the general import of the agreement and lay on the Table of the Dáil a copy of same.
Mr. BLYTHE Mr. BLYTHE
405
Mr. BLYTHE: No formal agreement was entered into with Sir M. Lippens prior to the 16th June, 1925, in respect of the erection of a Beet Sugar Factory or of the amount to be given by way of subsidy, but after a considerable amount of correspondence and informal discussion Sir M. Lippens had been notified on 30th March, 1925, that the Government was prepared to agree in general terms to certain proposals which he had made. A formal agreement was made between the Minister for Finance and Sir M. Lippens on the 1st October, 1925, which agreement was adopted by the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company on the 26th February, 1926. A summary of the proposals and copies of the Agreement referred to will be laid on the Table of the Dáil. The only difference of importance between the proposals and the formal agreement relates to the sugar production on which subsidy would be payable in the first three years of the ten-year period. At first it was proposed that the Company should be authorised to produce 10,000 tons annually in the ten-year period, with the right to increase the annual production to 15,000 tons in the last five years of that period. The formal agreement, however, provided for the payment of subsidy on the total amount of sugar produced in the factory in the first three years of the ten-year period, and fixed the maximum production on which subsidy should be payable at 10,000 tons per annum in the next two years and 15,000 tons per annum in the last five years of the period, subject to an over-riding maximum of 125,000 tons in the whole period. The concession with regard to the first three years of the period was made because there were at the time of the agreement no reliable data with reference to the production of sugar beet in the Saorstát on a commercial scale, and no one could state with any certainty how many acres of sugar beet would require to be under cultivation in order to produce 10,000 tons of sugar. The Company consequently did not know with certainty at that time what acreage to aim at in making their contracts with beet growers. In order to secure the best terms for the farmer it was necessary that three-year contracts should be entered into, and the Government considered it reasonable to make some concession as regards sugar production in the first three seasons, when a high price to growers was insisted upon under the Beet Sugar (Subsidy) Act. It was recognised that a good beginning was essential to the success of the enterprise.
406
It will be seen that at no period was the amount of sugar on which subsidy was payable limited to 86,000 tons over the whole ten-year period. When I was making my annual Financial Statement on the 22nd April, 1925, I used the following words:— “The amount of sugar which will be manufactured in the factory here is, of course, problematical, but it has been roughly estimated that the amounts will be 5,000 tons of sugar the first year, 6,000 tons of sugar the second year, 7,000 tons of sugar the third year, 8,000 tons of sugar the fourth year and 10,000 tons of sugar each of the next six years.” After giving an estimate of the amount of subsidy based on these figures I went on to say:— “In view of these figures and the fact that they might actually be exceeded, it is obvious that prudence dictates that we should not commit ourselves to more than one factory till our knowledge of all the factors governing the situation is considerably wider than it is at present.” Again on the Third Stage of the Beet Sugar (Subsidy) Bill I stated on the 24th June, 1925, that it would be in the interests of the factory to get not merely 5,000 acres, but 15,000 acres grown if it could. The estimate of 86,000 tons in the ten-year period was based on the expectations of Sir M. Lippens and his associates, and was accepted by the Department of Agriculture. It must be admitted frankly that everyone concerned under-estimated the enterprise and adaptability of the Irish farmer.
Mr. JOHNSON Mr. JOHNSON
Mr. JOHNSON: Does the Minister recognise that he also said that the proposed cost of £2,000,000 is not greatly in excess of the experiment at Cantley, and the whole discussion centred round the idea of £2,000,000?
Mr. BLYTHE Mr. BLYTHE
Mr. BLYTHE: That was the best estimate that could be given, but it is quite clear that it was only an estimate. It is also quite clear that it was desirable to have more if it could be got.
Mr. JOHNSON Mr. JOHNSON
Mr. JOHNSON: Does the Minister suggest that there was any suggestion during the discussion that the State might be involved in the payment of £3,000,000?
Mr. BLYTHE Mr. BLYTHE
Mr. BLYTHE: It was certainly suggested that the State might be involved for more than a subsidy on 86,000 tons.
Mr. WILSON Mr. WILSON
Mr. WILSON: Having regard to the agreement between the Government and the factory in October, what will the real commitment be under that agreement?
Mr. BLYTHE Mr. BLYTHE
Mr. BLYTHE: I have said that it is on 125,000 tons.
Mr. WILSON Mr. WILSON
Mr. WILSON: How much does that represent in money?
Mr. JOHNSON Mr. JOHNSON
407
[407] Mr. JOHNSON: Three millions.
Mr. WILSON Mr. WILSON
Mr. WILSON: No, that is what I want to get at. The subsidy on 125,000 at £23 a ton is £2,800,000.
Mr. BLYTHE Mr. BLYTHE
Mr. BLYTHE: The Deputy has omitted the fact that the subsidy includes not merely the subsidy actually paid but the benefit which the factory gets by having no customs duty charged, while customs duty is charged on incoming sugar.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 19 - 20 April, 1927
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - FLOODING IN COUNTY CARLOW.
EAMON O DUBHGHAILL EAMON O DUBHGHAILL
EAMON O DUBHGHAILL asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he is aware that considerable damage is being caused to the public road at Tullow, County Carlow, occasioned by flooding of the River Slaney, and whether the Carlow County Council has submitted a scheme to his Department for the prevention of a recurrence of this inundation, and whether such scheme will have his sanction.
Mr. HOGAN Mr. HOGAN
Mr. HOGAN: The information received by the Department goes to show that damage occasionally occurs to this road through flooding from the River Slaney, but the resultant expense is represented as inconsiderable. No remedial scheme has been submitted by the County Council. The matter was, however, raised by the Board of Health, who were advised fully by letter dated 6th instant as to the legal aspect of the situation. It does not appear that the case comes within the province of my Department.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 19 - 11 May, 1927
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - CARLOW SUGAR FACTORY.
TOMAS MAC EOIN TOMAS MAC EOIN
2198
TOMAS MAC EOIN asked the Minister for Finance what was the total quantity of sugar produced at the Carlow Factory during the season 1926-27; what sum has already been paid by way of subsidy to the Company, and what is the amount, if any, still outstanding.
Mr. BLYTHE Mr. BLYTHE
Mr. BLYTHE: The total amount of sugar manufactured at the Carlow Factory during the season 1926-27 was eleven thousand nine hundred and seventy-nine tons and ten cwt. Sums amounting in all to £181,502 4s. 9d. were paid to the Irish Sugar Manufacturing Company by way of subsidy on the sugar so manufactured. No part of the amount due on foot of the subsidy is outstanding
Dáil Éireann - Volume 21 - 12 October, 1927
DAIL VACANCY—WRIT FOR CARLOW-KILKENNY.
AN CEANN COMHAIRLE Michael Hayes
147
[147] AN CEANN COMHAIRLE: I have been supplied with a copy of a motion for the issue of a writ. If there is no objection, it can be taken now.
Agreed.
Mr. DUGGAN Mr. DUGGAN
Mr. DUGGAN: I move:—
Go n-ordóidh an Ceann Comhairle do Chléireach na Dála a rit a chur amach chun ball do thogha chun an fholúntais a thárla imease ballra na Dála so de bharr an Teachta Liam T. MacCosgair do thabhairt suas a shuíocháin mar bhall do Dháilcheanntar Cheatharlach Chill-Choinnigh.
That the Ceann Comhairle direct the Clerk of the Dáil to issue his writ for the election of a member to fill the vacancy which has occurred in the membership of the present Dáil consequent on the resignation by Deputy William T. Cosgrave of his seat as a member of the Constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny.
Question put and agreed to.
Dáil Éireann 21 DAIL VACANCY—WRIT FOR CARLOW-KILKENNY.
General Debate
Dáil Éireann - Volume 21 - 19 October, 1927
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - PRINTING TRADE UNEMPLOYMENT (CARLOW-KILKENNY).
TOMAS O DEIRG TOMAS O DEIRG
TOMAS O DEIRG asked the Minister for Finance whether, in view of the grave unemployment existing in the printing trade in the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency, he proposes to have all the official printing in connection with the forthcoming by-election done in the constituency, and, if not, to state the reasons for placing this work outside.
Mr. BLYTHE Mr. BLYTHE
Mr. BLYTHE: All printing and advertising in connection with the forthcoming by-election in the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency will, with the exception of the printing of the ballot papers, be entrusted to printing contractors within the constituency.
The ballot papers are printed elsewhere under contract, for which the printers in the area were duly invited to tender.
It may be added, for the Deputy's information, that the expenditure in respect of this constituency in connection with the two recent elections amounted to £356 6s. 2d., of which £269 11s. 2d. was expended within the constituency. In addition to this amount £900-£950 is paid annually to printers in the constituency for the printing of lists of electors, etc., being the full annual expenditure under that heading for the constituency
Dáil Éireann - Volume 21 - 19 October, 1927
WRITTEN ANSWERS. - CARLOW SUGAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
TOMAS O CONAILL TOMAS O CONAILL
TOMAS O CONAILL asked the Minister for Finance whether he has received a copy of the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the Carlow Sugar Manufacturing Company, and, if so, when it will be laid before the Dáil as required by Section 3 of the Beet Sugar (Subsidy) Act, 1925.
Mr. BLYTHE Mr. BLYTHE
Mr. BLYTHE: Copies of the accounts in question were presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas on the 13th instant.
Dáil Éireann 21 WRITTEN ANSWERS. CARLOW SUGAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
Questions
Dáil Éireann - Volume 21 - 10 November, 1927
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - CARLOW DISTRICT MENTAL HOSPITAL.
Mr. DE LOUGHREY Mr. DE LOUGHREY
1190
Mr. DE LOUGHREY asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Joint Committee of Management of the Carlow District Mental Hospital, passed unanimously at their meeting held on Thursday, the 13th October, 1927, calling the attention of the Minister to the overcrowded state of the Hospital, especially on the female side, and stating that for some time past the patients have been suffering from a contagious skin disease which cannot be eradicated as isolation is impossible; and whether plans for an extension of the hospital were submitted to the Department, and if he will state what is the present position with respect to providing the necessary additional accommodation.
General MULCAHY General MULCAHY
General MULCAHY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Plans for providing additional accommodation on the female side of the Carlow Mental Hospital at an estimated cost of £15,000 approximately have been submitted by the Joint Committee. Having regard to the conclusion arrived at by the Poor Law Commission that provision should be made for chronic and harmless mental cases in auxiliary mental hospitals and that, if such provision were made, the need for enlarging the existing mental hospitals would be obviated, it is proposed to examine the feasibility of giving effect to the Commission's recommendations in the matter before sanctioning any extension of Carlow Mental Hospital.
Mr. COLOHAN Mr. COLOHAN
Mr. COLOHAN: Does the Minister know that the Mental Hospital Committee are strongly opposed to the setting up of an Auxiliary Mental Hospital, and that they will not send their patients outside their own area? I would like the Minister to take into consideration the fact that we are strongly opposed to the course suggested in the Report of the Poor Law Commission.
General MULCAHY General MULCAHY
1191
General MULCAHY: The matter arises as a definite problem in the Report of the Poor Law Commission, and is one which concerns the country as a whole.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 21 - 11 November, 1927
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - DIVISION OF CO. CARLOW LANDS.
Mr. HOLOHAN Mr. HOLOHAN
1296
Mr. HOLOHAN asked the Minister for Fisheries when the untenanted lands of Lumcloon, Bagenalstown, County Carlow, owned by Mrs. Whitcroft  and Miss Watson, will be divided among the uneconomic holders and others, and also when the appointed day will be named for the tenants on this same estate.
Mr. RODDY Mr. RODDY
Mr. RODDY: The Land Commission are about to issue an offer for the purchase of an area of 94a. 1r. 14p. of the lands of Lumcloon on the estate of Mrs. Whitecroft and others.
It is not possible to say at present when the appointed day in respect of the tenanted lands will be fixed.
Dáil Éireann 21 CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. DIVISION OF CO. CARLOW LANDS.
TOMAS O DEIRG asked the Minister for Finance to state what amounts of the moneys subscribed to the Dáil Eireann Loan, 1920-21 in the counties (a) Kilkenny, and (b) Carlow have not yet been refunded to the subscribers, and the reasons for the prolonged delay in dealing with applications from these counties, and whether he is taking any steps to expedite the return of these moneys.
Mr. BLYTHE Mr. BLYTHE
Mr. BLYTHE: The compilation of the figures asked for in the first part of the Deputy's question would entail so much time and labour that I do not feel there is sufficient justification for undertaking it. As regards the second part, there has been no avoidable delay in dealing with applications from the two counties in question or from any other area. I can assure the Deputy that every possible step is being taken to expedite the repayment of subscriptions.
Mr. DERRIG Mr. DERRIG
Mr. DERRIG: Does the Minister consider two years, a period which is quite common in dealing with these cases, a reasonable period, or does he expect us to believe that that can be termed a period of unavoidable delay? I think that at the very least, the House ought to have some assurance that this work should be concluded in a reasonable time.
Mr. BLYTHE Mr. BLYTHE
Mr. BLYTHE: If the Deputy will at his leisure read my reply to the previous question he will perhaps understand some of the difficulties and that the delay has been unavoidable.
Mr. FAHY Mr. FAHY
Mr. FAHY: I beg to ask the Minister for Finance whether he would consider the advisability of sending to the subscribers whose names, addresses and receipt numbers are on the books in the office, notification of the unclaimed sums lying to the credit of such subscribers? The reason I ask this question is that within the last three months I met a man who was going to destroy a receipt for £10. He did not know it was any value.
Mr. BLYTHE Mr. BLYTHE
7
Mr. BLYTHE: I am prepared to consider any suggestion for seeing that the money is returned to individuals, but I would not undertake to take any particular action without having an opportunity of considering whether it might possibly result in the wrong persons being paid. There is very great difficulty because sometimes there are more persons than one of the same name in a particular townland and the result might be that the wrong person would get the letter and ultimately the money. Great care has to be taken in the matter.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 22 - 15 February, 1928
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - UNEMPLOYMENT IN KILKENNY-CARLOW.
11
TOMAS O DEIRG TOMAS O DEIRG
TOMAS O DEIRG asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to state what schemes have been sanctioned in Counties Kilkenny and Carlow under the unemployment relief grant, and the amounts allocated therefor; and whether, in view of the grave distress prevailing in these counties he will make further provision to deal with unemployment there.
Mr. BLYTHE Mr. BLYTHE
Mr. BLYTHE (replying): As regards Kilkenny County, grants of £225 towards Moneenroe waterworks scheme, costing £1,120, and of £500 towards a road scheme, estimated to cost £1,500, have been sanctioned. Other grants of £225 towards the cost of a water supply at Castlecomer and sanitary improvements at Callan, and of £875 for road works in Kilkenny Urban District were made available, but the local authorities did not proceed with the schemes.
As regards Carlow County, grants of £200 towards the cost of works for the prevention of flooding at Tullabeg and of £600 towards Carlow Urban District waterworks scheme have been sanctioned.
The full amount provided under the Vote for the Relief of Unemployment has now been allocated.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 22 - 09 March, 1928
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - UNTENANTED LANDS IN COUNTY CARLOW.
TOMAS O DEIRG TOMAS O DEIRG
TOMAS O DEIRG asked the Minister for Fisheries to state the reasons for the delay in the acquisition by the Land Commission of the untenanted lands (Whitcroft and others) at Lumclone, Fenagh, Muine Beag, and whether, in the distribution of those lands, preference will be given to the claims of evicted tenants.
Mr. RODDY Mr. RODDY
1064
Mr. RODDY: The Land Commission are negotiating with the owner for the purchase of 96a. 1r. 14p. of the lands of Lumclone. If the lands are acquired, the claims of all persons qualifying under Section 31 of the Land Act, 1923, will be considered.
Dáil Éireann 22 CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. UNTENANTED LANDS IN COUNTY CARLOW.
Questions
 Dáil Éireann - Volume 22 - 20 March, 1928
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - UNTENANTED LANDS, FENAGH, CARLOW.
Mr. GOREY (for Mr. Holohan) Mr. GOREY (for Mr. Holohan)
Mr. GOREY (for Mr. Holohan) asked the Minister for Fisheries whether he is aware that the untenanted lands at Lumclone, Fenagh, Co. Carlow, owned by Mrs. Whitcroft and others, have not yet been acquired by the Land Commission; and whether he will now state when the appointed day will be fixed for the tenants on the estate.
Mr. RODDY Mr. RODDY
Mr. RODDY: A formal offer has recently been issued to the owners of this estate for the purchase of 99 acres of untenanted lands in the townland of Drumclone.
As regards the tenanted portion of this estate, it is anticipated that the provisional list of holdings which will, if not excluded in consequence of a valid objection, become vested in the Land Commission on the appointed day will be published at an early date, but it is not possible at present to say when the final list will be published.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 23 - 25 April, 1928
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - HOUSING IN KILKENNY AND CARLOW.
TOMAS O DEIRG TOMAS O DEIRG
TOMAS O DEIRG asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he will state the number of houses built (a) in Carlow, and (b) in Kilkenny, in each year since 1922 as private undertakings or under the Housing Acts; the total cost of the houses built under the Housing Acts, and the total amount of Government grants or subsidies paid?
RISTEARD O MAOLCHATHA RISTEARD O MAOLCHATHA
RISTEARD O MAOLCHATHA: Sé méid tithe ar fad a thóg daoine príobháideacha i gContae Cheatharlach fé Achtanna na dTithe 1924-6 ná 7 gcinn. Do tugadh Deontaisí Rialtais de £440 chun cabhruithe leis na tithe sin do thógáil. I gContae Chill Choinnigh, do thóg daoine príobháideacha 34 tithe agus do tugadh Deontaisí Rialtais de £2,425 chuige sin.
Sé méid tithe ar fad a thóg Udarásanna Aitiúla i gContae Cheatharlach ón mbliain 1922 fé Achtanna na dTithe na 12 cheann; do chosnuigh siad sin £7,894 10s. 1d., agus bhí Deontas Rialtais de £4,848 ar an tsuim sin:
I gContae Chill Choinnigh, do thóg údarásanna áitiúla 16 tithe; do chosnuigh siad £9,924 16s. 9d. agus bhí Deontas Rialtais de £6,650 ar an tsuim sin.
TOMAS O DEIRG TOMAS O DEIRG
331
TOMAS O DEIRG: An bhfuil aon áthrú ar an mhéid airgid atá le fághail chun na tighthe do thógáil anois?
RISTEARD O MAOLCHATHA RISTEARD O MAOLCHATHA
RISTEARD O MAOLCHATHA: Níl. Ach is beag airgid atá fágtha chuige sin.
Dáil Éireann 23 CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. HOUSING IN
Dáil Éireann - Volume 23 - 03 May, 1928
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - EMPLOYMENT IN CARLOW.
Mr. EDWARD DOYLE Mr. EDWARD DOYLE
801
Mr. EDWARD DOYLE asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he can state what steps, if any, he proposes to take in finding employment for those who were employed in the Carlow Sugar Factory and, are now idle.
Mr. McGILLIGAN Mr. McGILLIGAN
Mr. McGILLIGAN: Employment in the Sugar Factory is known to be seasonal. Those who work in it during the period of the campaign have, when the employment terminates, no special claim for preferential treatment as compared with other unemployed workers. If they register at the Employment Exchanges every effort will be made to place them in any available employment.
Mr. DOYLE Mr. DOYLE
Mr. DOYLE: Will the Minister state whether he is now in a position to start work on the River Barrow at Graigue-Cullen, where considerable flooding has been going on for some time?
Mr. McGILLIGAN Mr. McGILLIGAN
Mr. McGILLIGAN: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. DOYLE Mr. DOYLE
Mr. DOYLE: It means leaving men unemployed when almost two-thirds of those working in the factory are unemployed.
Mr. McGILLIGAN Mr. McGILLIGAN
Mr. McGILLIGAN: I said that if they register efforts will be made to place them in suitable employment.
Dáil Éireann 23 CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. EMPLOYMENT IN CARLOW.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 24 - 14 June, 1928
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - DISTRIBUTION OF LANDS IN COUNTY CARLOW.
TOMAS O DEIRG TOMAS O DEIRG
TOMAS O DEIRG asked the Minister for Fisheries whether the Land Commission propose to acquire the Vesey (formerly Newton) estate, Dunleckney, Muine Beag, for distribution among uneconomic holders and landless men in the vicinity.
PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER for FISHERIES (Mr. Roddy) Martin Roddy
PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER for FISHERIES (Mr. Roddy): The Land Commission are having inquiries made as to the suitability of the untenanted lands on the Vesey estate for acquisition under the provisions of the Land Act, 1923
Dáil Éireann - Volume 26 - 24 October, 1928
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - CO. CARLOW ESTATE.
TOMAS O DEIRG TOMAS O DEIRG
TOMAS O DEIRG asked the Minister for Lands and Fisheries whether he will state what progress has been made by the Land Commission towards acquiring the Castle farm (Bruen estate), Ballyloughan, Muine Beag, and when it is proposed to take steps for its distribution among the neighbouring uneconomic holders.
Mr. RODDY Mr. RODDY
763
Mr. RODDY: The lands referred to appear to be a holding of 79a. 2r. 55p. in the townland of Ballyloughan, on the estate of Henry Bruen, Co. Carlow, occupied by Thomas F. Rothwell as, tenant, which the Land Commission propose to retain under Section 28, subsection 6 (d) of the Land Act, 1923, with a view to considering the question of taking proceedings for its resumption for the relief of congestion.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 28 - 13 March, 1929
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Carlow Sugar Factory.
Dr. Ryan (for Tomás O Déirg) Dr. Ryan (for Tomás O Déirg)
1240
Dr. Ryan (for Tomás O Déirg) asked the Minister for Agriculture whether he is now prepared to make any statement regarding the reported negotiations between the Carlow Sugar Manufacturing Company and the Beet Growers' Association.
Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan) Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan)
Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan): Negotiations in this matter are still proceeding. The Deputy will therefore understand that I am not in a position at present to make any further statement on the subject.
Dáil Éireann 28 Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. Carlow Sugar
Dáil Éireann - Volume 29 - 15 May, 1929
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Carlow Unemployment Claim.
Mr. T.J. Murphy (for Mr. E. Doyle) Mr. T.J. Murphy (for Mr. E. Doyle)
Mr. T.J. Murphy (for Mr. E. Doyle) asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he can state why unemployment insurance benefit has not been paid to Edward Dowling, Balloncross, Ballon, Co. Carlow, Serial No. 1183, who made application at the Labour Exchange, Tullow, on the 27th February, 1929.
Mr. Dolan Mr. Dolan
Mr. Dolan: A claim to unemployment benefit made by Edward Dowling on the 27th February last was disallowed by the Insurance Officer on the ground that the claimant was not unemployed. From that decision the claimant appealed to the Court of Referees, and finally the claim went before the Umpire, who upheld the Insurance Officer's decision. The claim accordingly remains disallowed.
Mr. Cassidy Mr. Cassidy
Mr. Cassidy: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the applicant got notice of the fact that the appeal was to be heard before the Court of Referees?
Mr. Dolan Mr. Dolan
Mr. Dolan: All the usual notices obligatory in such cases were sent out.
Mr. Cassidy Mr. Cassidy
Mr. Cassidy: I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary should use the expression “all the usual notices,” in view of the fact that many of these applicants to the Court of Referees do not get notice when their appeals will be heard.
Mr. Dolan Mr. Dolan
Mr. Dolan: He got all the notices he was entitled to.
 
Source: http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/:
1930-1935

Please report any links or images which do not open to mjbrennan30@gmail.com

The information contained within the pages of this web site is provided solely for the purpose of sharing with others researching their ancestors in Ireland.
© 2001 Ireland Genealogy Projects, IGP TM  By Pre-emptive Copyright - All rights reserved

TOP OF PAGE