§ Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state on what grounds MTS. Brewer, of Cahirciveen, has been deprived of the old age pension granted by the local sub-committee, in 740W view of the fact that she was two years of age when her father and mother were evicted in the year 1840; that they were compelled to beg around the country with the applicant and their names did not appear in the Census of 1841, and there is no record in the Census of 1851; and whether he will have further inquiry made into the matter?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe Local Government Board upheld the appeal of the pension officer against the decision of the pension sub-committee granting Mrs. Brewer a pension. No evidence was submitted to the Board as to the eviction of her parents or her age at that time. Her parents were traced in the Census Return of 1841, but the claimant's name did not appear among the members of the family. In these circumstances there appears to be no reason for making further inquiry into the case, which, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, cannot be reconsidered by the Board.
§ Mr. THOMAS F. SMYTHasked the Chief Secretary if he can state why it is that Mrs. Jane Treacey, who resides at Drumingra, Keshcarrigan, county Leitrim, has not as yet got her pension, although it was passed for the second time by the Carrick-on-Shannon pension committee on 8th October, 1909, when she produced a baptismal certificate that she was then in her seventy-first year, and, although she has written to the Local Government Board and the local pension officer repeatedly about the matter, she has never got her pension book?
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo appeal appears to have come before the Local Government Board in this case. The payment of pensions is not a matter over which I have any control.
§ Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that Thomas Meenaghan, of Ballintubber, Castlebar, county Mayo, has been refused an old age pension on the grounds that his income exceeds £31 10s. per year; whether the pension officer, in calculating the claimant's income, included profits from a farm which Meenaghan transferred to his nephew on the marriage of the latter several years ago; and whether the Local Government Board, before coming to such decision, inquired whether the farm had been so transferred long before the Old Age Pensions Act was passed, although the written conveyance of the farm was not executed until last year?
741W
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe Local Government Board disallowed Meenaghan's claim on appeal on the ground stated. The pension officer, in. calculating the applicant's means, included the profits from a farm of nineteen acres, but the Local Government Board formed their own conclusion as to the claimant's means. Their decision was given in December, 1908, and there was no evidence before them that the farm did not belong to Meenaghan.
§ Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary whether Thomas Heneghan, of Castlebar district, county Mayo, has been refused an old age pension on the grounds that his income exceeds £31 10s. per year; whether the pension officer, in calculating claimant's income, included profits from a holding of lands which, in 'accordance with the custom of the country, Heneghan transferred to his son on the marriage of the latter several years ago; whether he included also the stock upon the said holding, and which in another portion of his Report the pension officer admitted belonged to the son; and will the Local Government Board make further inquiry into the circumstances of the case?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI understand that Heneghan's first claim for a pension was disallowed by the pension sub-committee on 31st December, 1908, on the ground of means. He then formally assigned his holding on 29th January, 1909, to a nephew who had been married sixteen years, and a pension was granted to him by the subcommittee. The Local Government Board, however, disallowed the claim on appeal, as they were satisfied that Heneghan's means exceeded £31 10s. per annum. In coming to their decision the Board formed their own judgment, and were in no way bound by the estimate of means made by the pension officer. It is not open to the Board to reconsider their decision.
§ Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he can state on what grounds Mrs. Norah Bowler, of Dirrunamore, near Cahirciveen, has been deprived of her old age pension; can he state on what authority the pension officer and the Local Government Board grounded their contention that she was ten years of age in 1851, seeing that the Census Office state that no record of her family was found either in the Census of 1841 or 1851; and whether, in view of the fact that the documentary evidence of the parish register proves that she was married fifty-two years ago, he can state what steps, if any, 742W he will take to secure that she is now granted her pension?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe Local Government Board decided that Mrs. Bowler had not yet attained the statutory age. She was shown as ten years of age in the Census Returns of 1851, but her family could not be traced in the Returns of 1841. The fact that the Public Record Office informed Mrs. Bowler that her family could not be found in the Return of 1851 is presumably due to her having given different particulars in her application to that office from those furnished by her to the pension officer for the purposes of his search. A certificate was forwarded to the Board showing that a son of Mrs. Bowler was baptised on 20th January, 1859, but that fact is not inconsistent with the evidence of the Census Returns of 1851. It is not open to the Board to reconsider their decision.
Mr. POWERasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that Anastasia Gough was passed for a pension in March, 1909, both by the pension officer and the Kilmacthomas, county Waterford, sub-committee, on the ground that her income did not exceed £20 10s.; that after six months another pension officer called upon her, and on 28th August notified the sub-committee of his objection to Anastasia Gough's pension, on the score that her income exceeded £31 10s., namely, three acres of land, £21 16s.; £250 in bank, at 1½ per cent., £3 15s.; and five sheep, 40 fowls, milk, and butter, £15 12s.; making the pension officer's estimate of total income £41 3s.; and that, on reinvestigating the case, this pension officer found that neither the land, money, sheep, nor fowls belonged to Anastasia Gough, and that therefore the decision of the sub-committee was correct, namely, that her income did not exceed £20 10s.; and, if so, will he explain why her pension is still withheld from her, and how it was estimated that an income of £21 16s. was derivable from three acres of ordinary land paying 10s. per acre?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI understand that Mrs. Gough was originally granted a pension by the sub-committee, but a question was subsequently raised by the pension officer on fresh evidence chiefly based on pensioner's own statements, which appeared to show that her means exceeded £31 10s. per annum. His estimate was made up generally in the manner set forth in the second part of the question. The sub- 743W committee decided against the pension officer, but, on appeal, the Local Government Board upheld his view, as they considered that the total means of the pensioner, including privileges accorded her by a son who farms 120 acres of good land, exceeded the statutory limit of £31 10s. per annum. A second claim has since been made by Mrs. Gough, and it is now stated that the means referred to in the question do not belong to her. This claim is at present under the consideration of the Board, whose decision will be given as soon as practicable. The pension officer's estimate mentioned in the concluding portion of the hon. Member's question included the value of a free cottage with three acres of land, five sheep, and forty hens, which he regarded as worth 8s. weekly taken together. The Board, however, form their own estimate of means on the facts which come before them.