asked the Minister for Local Government whether he is aware that the old age pension was granted to Mrs. Blaney, Coosan, Athlone, in April, 1922, and was subsequently refused her; whether her age, at the time she first received the pension, was proved to be 71 years by sworn affidavit, and signed by two persons from the district aged 71 and 81 years, respectively; further, to ask if sworn affidavits in such cases are useless, if he will state what steps aged persons who cannot procure their birth certificates will have to take to satisfy him as to their ages to secure the pension.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - COOSAN (ATHLONE) OLD AGE PENSION CLAIM.
SEAN O LAIDHIN
The pension was granted to Mrs. Blaney by the Athlone No. 1 Pension Sub-Committee on the 25th July, 1922, and again on the 24th January, 1923. An appeal was lodged by the Pension Officer on age on each occasion, and the decisions of the Sub-Committee were reversed.
The official papers do not show that any affidavit in support of age was submitted in connection with either appeal. Mrs. Blaney's baptismal certificate has not been produced, or any evidence to show her age at marriage. It would appear that the marriage took place in America.
Mrs. Blaney at first informed the Pension Officer that she was about two years older than her sister Elizabeth, born on the 26th July, 1857, but subsequently informed him that that statement was incorrect, and that a brother named Michael came between her and Elizabeth, and that she was two years older than Michael.
The first appeal was determined on the 27th September, 1922.
When the second appeal was under consideration, Mrs. Blaney's son wrote on behalf of his mother, and was requested in reply to send in affidavits respecting her age. He sent, instead of affidavits, a written statement signed by two old persons—one of whom declared that she knew Mrs. Blaney for 70 years, and the other that he went to school with her 65 years previously, and that she was then 7 years of age. The claimant's son, in his covering letter, stated that his uncle was aged 74 years, and two years older than his mother.
The second appeal was determined on the 15th March, 1923, and the case has not since come before the Ministry on appeal.
As regards proof of age by claimants who are unable to procure baptismal certificates, I would refer the Deputy to the answers given on this subject to Deputies Shaw, MacCosgair and McGoldrick, on the 17th January, 23rd November, and 27th March last, respectively.
Will the Minister state if sworn affidavits will enable claimants to get the pension?
Not in every case.