asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if an application for an old age pension was received from James McIntosh, Borris Road, Portlaoighise, Leix, on March 2nd, 1926; whether same was accompanied by a sworn statement that claimant was then over seventy years of age; if he can give the reason why payment of pension was sanctioned as from July 30th, 1926, and if he will now order payment as from March 2nd, 1926, or state his reasons for not doing so.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - OLD AGE PENSION CLAIMS.
The claim of Edward (not James) McIntosh was received by the pension officer on the 2nd of March last, as stated by the Deputy, and came to me for determination on appeal on the ground of age on the 21st of May last. The only definite evidence available as to age was the record in the official marriage register that he was 22 years old when married on the 21st of July, 1881, according to which he would not be 70 years old until the year 1929. Declarations in support of the claim were made by several neighbours.
Local investigation was made by one of the Department's general inspectors, and on his report, in conjunction with the evidence already received, I was not satisfied that the claimant had attained the statutory age of 70 years prior to the 30th of July last, the date on which the decision was given. A pension of nine shillings a week was accordingly granted from that date, and I am unable to authorist payment from an earlier date.
asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if an application for an old age pension was received from Mrs. Mary Wheeler, Castlegrogan, Ballybrophy, Leix, on January 6th, 1926; whether same was accompanied by a sworn statement that applicant was then over seventy years of age, and if he can state the reason why payment of pension was sanctioned as from September 1st, 1926, or if he will now order payment of arrears as from January 6th, 1926.
The facts are as stated by the Deputy. This claim was received by the pension officer on the 6th of January last and came to me on appeal on the ground of age on the 21st of July last. After local investigation of the facts bearing on the claimant's age had been made by one of the Department's general inspectors, the claimant was granted, on the 15th of September, an old age pension of nine shillings week from the 1st of September, 1926. I was unable to authorise the grant of a pension from an earlier date, as I was not satisfied on the evidence before me that the claimant had attained the statutory age of 70 years prior to the date specified in the decision, which cannot be reconsidered.
Will the Minister state, regarding his two answers, whether pension applicants are to understand for the future that it is useless and an unnecessary expense on their part to endeavour to secure sworn statements from reliable local people in support of their claim to be the required age, and are we to understand from him now that he prefers to take the opinion of a general inspector, who does not reside in the district, or who, if he does, does not know the people of the district, as against the sworn declarations of reliable local people? In other words, has he come to the conclusion that all people over seventy years of age have lost their memory or are perjurers?
I cannot see what the Deputy has to complain of in this par ticular case, or how his argument follows from the way the claimants have been treated in these two cases. Both of them have not only got the pension but the full pension from the date when the claims were settled.
The dates were admitted by the Minister to be correct. They were passed by the pensions committee, they were supported by sworn declaration, which the Minister up to the present has invited, but which he now ignores and prefers the opinion of his inspector. Will the Minister amend the regulations regarding sworn statements?
I have no power to amend them.
Five thousand have been rejected, according to an answer given yesterday.
I think the Minister should confine his economy to some other section of the taxpayers. Carrying on in this way is not much to his credit.