HC Deb 29 May 1911 vol 26 cc857-9W

asked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the precise nature of the alleged wrong particulars furnished by Martin Quinn, Belclare, and Margaret Rochford, Stonepark, both of the D.D. Aclare sub-pension committee, county Sligo, which induced the Local Government Board to cancel these people's pensions; whether the sole ground of disqualification rested on the allegation that these people in making their application gave the wrong names of their townlands, which, in that Irish-speaking district, have more names than one; and whether, seeing that these people are illiterate and reside in a backward congested district, their cases will be reconsidered in accordance with the wishes of the local committee?


The Local Government Board nearly two years ago discontinued the pensions of the two persons referred to, not because they had furnished wrong particulars, but because they failed to show that they had reached the statutory age. I understand that fresh claims were subsequently lodged, and that these two persons are now in receipt of pensions. These pensions run from the Friday after the claims were allowed, and there is no power to antedate them.


asked the cause of the delay in paying to Michael Carroll, Kilfarboy, Miltown Malbay, West Clare, the old age pension which was granted to him on 15th December or 20th December last?


On the 31st January last the Local Government Board upheld an appeal lodged by the pension officer against the award on the 22nd December last of a pension to Michael Carroll by the Clare County Pension Committee on the ground that Carroll's means exceeded the statutory limit.


asked the Chief Secretary on what evidence the Local Government Board referred the claim to an old age pension of Mary Shaw, of Carrollustia, Colgagh post office, county Sligo; whether he was aware of the fact that the Sligo (No. 1) Sub-pension Committee on 30th March, 1911, unanimously passed her claim to an old age pension at the rate of 5s. per week; whether he disputes the contention of this committee that they most carefully considered all the evidence in the case; whether the local pension officer, during the investigation of the claim, expressed as his opinion that the claimant was of the age qualifying her for a pension; and whether, in view of all the circumstances of the case, the Local Government Board would reinvestigate it, so as to order the payment of this woman's pension and arrears?


The Local Government Board upheld an appeal by the pension officer against the decision of the Sligo (No. 1) Sub-pension Committee awarding Mary Shaw a pension on the ground that the evidence submitted was insufficient to show that she had attained the statutory age. There is no reason to suppose that the Sub-committee did not carefully consider the evidence before them, but the Board are not aware that the pension officer expressed the opinion attributed to him. The Board are not empowered to reopen the case.