HC Deb 30 June 1910 vol 18 cc1087-9
Mr. BOLAND

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was aware that the claim of Patrick Currane, Knockeens, Cahirciveen, to an old age pension had been passed twice by the sub-committee, as they were satisfied that he was well over seventy years of age; and whether, seeing that no record of his age could be found in the Census of 1841 or 1851, could he state on what ground the Local Government Board refused to grant his pension?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)

The facts are as stated. The Local Government Board disallowed the claim because Patrick Currane was unable to furnish any evidence to satisfy them that he had attained the statutory age.

Mr. BOLAND

What chance has this man of proving his age even after ten years, other than is to be found in the Census Returns?

Mr. BIRRELL

The Census Returns will not help him, but any evidence whatever is open to this man to prove his case showing that he is seventy.

Mr. MacVEAGH

asked the Chief Secretary whether he can state on what grounds Peter M'Conville, Tullyquilly, Rathfriland, county Down, has been refused an old age pension, seeing that the Poor Law valuation of his holding is only £9, and that, being unfit for hard work, he has to pay for assistance in labouring his holding; whether the fact of his son holding land in the proximity is one of the reasons for the decision; and, if so. whether he can state what section in the Old Age Pensions Act authorises the pensions officer to take such a consideration into account?

Mr. BIRRELL

This question should be addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury.

Mr. MacVEAGH

May I ask the Secretary to the Treasury to answer it now?

Mr. BIRRELL

He cannot answer it now.

Mr. MOORE

May I ask the Secretary to the Treasury —

Mr. SPEAKER

There is nothing out of which a question can be asked.

Mr. BOLAND

asked the Chief Secretary whether he could state on what grounds Michael Joy, Cooleanig, Beaufort, county Kerry, had been deprived of his old age pension; whether he was aware that, according to one Census, a brother of Michael Joy was returned as being only sixty-nine years of age, whereas the parish register conclusively proved that he was eighty-one years of age; and whether Michael Joy had been disqualified merely on the ground that his name had not been found in the Census of 1841?

Mr. BIRRELL

The Local Government Board disallowed this man's pension as he was unable to produce satisfactory evidence that he was of the statutory age. It appears from the parish register that a brother of his named John was baptised in 1828, and a brother named John is shown in the Census Returns of 1841 as one month old, but there is no proof that the two entries relate to the same person, and a boy of thirteen could hardly be mistaken for a child a month old.