§ Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Mary-O'Connor, register number 425 of the Sneem sub-committee, has been deprived of an old age pension, although her age could not be traced in the Census records; and whether, in view of the collateral evidence submitted, steps will now be taken to restore her pension?
§ Mr. BIRRELLIt does not appear from the facts before the Local Government Board that this woman was ever in receipt of an old age pension. A claim made by her was disallowed by the Board on appeal on 7th September, 1909, she having produced no evidence that she had attained the statutory age. A later claim was disallowed by the Board on 20th February, 1911, on the same grounds. The claimant's family could not be traced in the Census Returns of 1S41 or 1851. It is not open to the Board to reconsider their decision.
§ Mr. BOLANDalso asked on what grounds the claim of Ellen Reilly to an old age pension, which was granted by the Derriana sub-committee, Caherciveen district, has been refused, in view of the evidence submitted as to her age, and of the fact that, in spite of repeated applications, the Census Office has not traced her name in the Census Returns?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe Local Government Board decided on the 2nd June, 1911, on a question raised by the pension officer that Ellen Reilly had not attained the age of seventy years. She furnished no satisfactory evidence of age, and her name did not appear in the return of her family in the Census of 1841.
§ Mr. BOLANDfurther asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mary O'Connor, register number 356 of the Sneem sub-committee, has been deprived of her old age pension though her age could not be traced in the Census records, and evidence has been given of her having attained the statutory age; and whether steps will be taken to restore the pension?
§ Mr. BIRRELLA question was raised by the pension officer in this case as to the pensioner's age, and on appeal the Local Government Board decided that she had not attained the age of seventy years. Her218W name did not appear in the return of her parents' family in the Census of 1841, and the family could not be traced in the 1851 Census Return. She did not know the date of her birth, and furnished no evidence of age. It is not open to the Board to reconsider their decision.
§ Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Bridget Mangan, whose registered number on the Sneem sub-committee's register is 393, was deprived of an old age pension by reason of a statement by one of the pension officers that her name had been found in the Census, and that she had not attained the statutory age, although search in the Census by the sub-committee was made and her name could not be found; whether he is aware that a second pension officer failed to find her name in the Census records; and whether, in view of the evidence of age which has been given and of the mistake made by the first pension officer, her claim will now be admitted?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe Local Government Board decided on 25th May, 1911, that Bridget Mangan was not entitled to any pension. The pension officer who raised the question reported that the Census of 1851 showed her to be nine years of age at that date, and the Board satisfied themselves through a search of the Census records by one of their own officers that this report was correct, and that the return related to the claimant. It is not open to the Board to reconsider their decision.
§ Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Michael Sullivan, of Ardeen, register number 427 of the Sneem sub-committee and number 79 of the pension officer, was deprived of his old age pension, although his son had been married in 1900 and has been in occupation of the farm since that year; that no marriage agreement was made, as it was not the custom of the district at that time to execute such marriage agreements; that since 1900 Michael Sullivan has only the grass of two cows for the support of his wife and himself; and whether, if Michael Sullivan now executes a marriage agreement with his son whereby he retains the grass of two cows only, his pension will be restored to him?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe pension in this case was disallowed by the Local Government Board on 26th November, 1909, on the 219W ground that Michael Sullivan had not attained the statutory age. Since then he has made two claims, which were disallowed by the Board on appeal on the ground that his moans as calculated under the Old Age Pensions Act did not entitle him to any pension. The Board were satisfied that he was still the actual owner of the holding. It is not open to the Board to reconsider their decision; and in any case if Sullivan were (as the hon. Member suggests) to deprive himself of property in order to qualify for the receipt of a pension, the income or yearly value of that property would, under Section 4 (3) of the Old Age Pensions Act, still have to be taken as part of his means.