HC Deb 24 July 1911 vol 28 cc1460-3
Mr. SCANLAN

asked whether in disallowing the old age pension awarded by the Skreen, county Sligo, sub-committee, to Martin O'Gara, of Carrenree, Dromard P. O., county Sligo, the Local Government Board had any evidence against the claim other than the absence of claimant's name from the Census Returns of 1841 and 1851; and whether he is aware that the subcommittee, in adjudicating on the claim, had before them the evidence of Pat Harte, a man of eighty-six years, and of Mr. Melvin, and had also seen the applicant, and had unanimously come to the conclusion that the applicant was qualified as to age; and whether, in view of the circumstances, the decision of the Local Government Board can be justified; and whether he will order a reconsideration of this case so that O'Gara may receive his pension, with arrears?

Mr. BIRRELL

The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension as to the facts of this case. On 3rd June, 1910, the Skreen pension sub-committee, on a question raised by the pension officer as to O'Gara's age, disallowed the pension they had previously awarded. The pensioner then appealed to the Local Government Board, but failed to furnish any satisfactory evidence that he had attained the statutory age. He could not be traced in the Census Returns of 1841 and 1851, and the date of his marriage was 23rd July, 1874, at which date his age is reported by the pension officer to have been only twenty-one. The Board accordingly confirmed the decision of the sub-committee.

Mr. SCANLAN

asked on whose appeal and on what evidence or representation of the facts the Local Government Board have stopped payment of the old age pension granted in January, 1909, to Mrs. Hennigan, widow, of Urlar, Carney, county Sligo; and whether he is aware of the fact that the local sub-committee who considered her claim and heard and investigated the evidence came to the unanimous conclusion that the applicant was qualified as to age and means and entitled to a pension at the maximum sum?

Mr. BIRRELL

The pension officer raised a question as to Mrs. Hennigan's age, but the Carney pension sub-committee continued the pension as they considered that their previous decision allowing it was final and conclusive. The pension officer then appealed to the Local Government Board. Mrs. Hennigan, when asked by the Board for evidence as to her age, informed them that she was married in May, 1874, and asserted she was born on the 6th June, 1839, but produced no evidence in support of the latter statement. Her parents were traced in the Census Returns of 1841 and 1851, but her name did not appear in the list of the family in either of the records. The Board therefore in August last determined that she had not yet attained the age of seventy years.

Mr. O'DOWD

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Thomas Foley, of Clooneen, Geenagh, county Sligo, Ballyfarnon D. S. sub-committee district, has been deprived of the old age pension awarded him by the local committee; whether the Local Government Board disallowed this old man's claim on the grounds of no proof of age, although several old people of eighty-two years certified that they had known him to be over seventy; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that sworn evidence can be adduced in support of this claim, the points in connection with it will be reconsidered?

Mr. BIRRELL

Thomas Foley's first claim was disallowed by the pension subcommittee, but on his making a further application a pension was awarded to him. Against this decision the pension officer appealed. Certain persons claiming to be from seventy-five to ninety years of age expressed their belief that Foley was over seventy. His family, however, were found in the Census Return of 1841, but his name did not appear in the list of members. The Local Government Board disallowed the pension on the ground that he had failed to show that he had attained the statutory age. If he is in a position to furnish further evidence regarding his age, it is open to him to make a fresh claim.

Mr. O'DOWD

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state the grounds on which pensions have been withdrawn from Michael Curran, of Ballinashee, Geenagh, county Sligo, and John Cullen, of the same district, both residing in the Ballyfarnon (No. 2) sub-committee district of the county Sligo pension committee; whether these pensions have not been allowed because the names of these applicants could not be found in the Census Returns of 1841 or 1851, although it is a matter of general knowledge in the district that both are approaching the age of eighty; and, if so, whether, under the circumstances, their cases will be reopened?

Mr. BIRRELL

In each of these cases the parents' family was traced in the Census Return of 1841, but the claimant's name was not recorded. Neither the claimants nor the persons making written statements on their behalf alleged that they were nearly eighty years old, though it is stated they are over seventy. No satisfactory evidence being forthcoming to show that the Census Return was wrong, the Local Government Board allowed the appeal in each instance on the ground that the claimant had failed to show that ho had attained the statutory age. When the Board have given a decision disallowing a claim, the case can only be re-opened by the lodgment of a fresh claim.

Mr. FRANCIS MEEHAN

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he would state why was John Maguire, of Lattone, Kiltyclogher, deprived of his old age pension; and whether he having proven his age through affidavits from persons whose ages range from eighty-six to ninety-six years, and being a poor labouring man, is fully entitled to the benefits of the Act?

Mr. BIRRELL

Maguire's age was given in the Census Return of 1851 as being four years, and he produced no satisfactory evidence to show that the record is incorrect. The Local Government Board accordingly allowed the appeals on the ground that he had failed to show that he had attained the statutory age.

Mr. FRANCIS MEEHAN

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he would state on what grounds the Local Government Board refused to grant an old age pension to Ellen McTernan, of Tullynascreen, Dromahair, county Leitrim; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Manorhamilton sub-committee granted the pension on the sworn testimony of several old age pensioners and reliable witnesses, her case would be reconsidered with a view of granting her a pension with all arrears due since the date of her application?

Mr. BIRRELL

Several aged persons certified that Ellen McTernan was seventy-three years old, and the claimant has herself stated she was that age. In her claim to a pension, however, she said she was born in July, 1840; and the Census Return of 1841 showed her parents as having been married in 1839, and recorded no child named Ellen in 1841. The Local Government Board accordingly disallowed her claim on the ground that she had failed to show that she had reached the statutory age. The Board are not empowered to reconsider their decisions.

Mr. FRANCIS MEEHAN

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the case of an old age pensioner named John Devaney, of Mulcan, Glencar, county Leitrini, who was granted an old age pension by the Manorhamilton sub-committee in July, 1909, but, on appeal by the pension officer, the Local Government Board disallowed it on the ground of means, but, on further inquiry by the Local Government Board's inspector, the pension was allowed in January, 1911, although no change had taken place in Devaney's means in the meantime, Devaney should now be paid the amount of his pension from July, 1909, to January, 1911?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

I am making inquiries as to this case, and will communicate their result to the hon. Member.

Mr. SCANLAN

asked whether the old age pension of William Maye, Lecarron, Skreen, county Sligo, Skreen sub-committee, was stopped for six months owing to a mistake made by the pension officer in regard to Maye's age; and whether, as he was shown by the Census returns, and other evidence, to have been qualified fully for a pension from the date on which his claim was passed by the sub-committee in October, 1910, he would be given payment of arrears for the said period of six months?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

I am making inquiries into this case, and will communicate further with the hon. Member when they are complete.