asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether he is aware that the claim for old age pension was disallowed on the appeal of the Pension Officer in the case of Bessie Briody, Gainstown, Curraghtown, Navan, Co. Meath, number on Pension Officer's Register 1906; that there is very substantial evidence of age which was given before the SubCommittee at Navan, where this claim was allowed; and whether, in view of the fact that this evidence is available, he will reinvestigate this claim.

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.

A baptismal certificate was not produced. There was an affidavit from a resident, aged 85 years, who stated that he had known the claimant since childhood, and that she was over 70 years—he would say 72. There was also a letter from another stating that he was prepared to swear that the claimant was over 70 years of age.

If, however, she is now in a position to submit reasonably conclusive evidence that she has attained the age of 70 years, it is open to her to make a new claim and to forward it with the evidence to the Pension Officer in the ordinary way.

Will the Minister state why the reasons already given to the Pension Officer have not been conclusive, and what is the Minister's interpretation of the words "reasonably conclusive"?

I issued to Deputies very full information as to what would be considered reasonably conclusive evidence of age, and the Deputy might consult that document for those instructions.

Will the Minister state why the affidavit of a person aged 82, and the affidavit of a person aged 80, who declared that the applicant was 72 years, and also the evidence of a person who declared that the applicant was over 70 years, was not sufficient?

In the light of all the circumstances, it was decided that the evidence of age was not conclusive.