asked the Minister for Defence if he will state when he received an application for a military service pension (Reference S.P./9267) on behalf of the late Patrick Doyle, Banagher, Offaly; whether the claim has been considered by the Board of Assessors, and whether he is now in a position to authorise payment of whatever allowance is due to the widow and child of Doyle, or state reasons why he cannot do so.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - CLAIMS FOR MILITARY SERVICE PENSIONS.
The late Patrick Doyle's application under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924, was received on the 27th February, 1925, and has been considered by the Board of Assessors. The Board's report shows that they were not satisfied that Mr. Doyle rendered the minimum amount of military service required for pension purposes by sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Act. I regret that I am, therefore, not in a position to authorise any payment to his widow and child.
asked the Minister for Defence if he received an application for a military service pension from John Brophy, Barrack Street, Crinkle, Birr, Offaly, and if he can now state whether he is prepared to authorise payment of the amount due, or state the reason why he is unable to do so.
Mr. Brophy's application has been referred to the Board of Assessors to determine his military service for pension purposes. Until the Board make their report I shall not be in a position to say whether Mr. Brophy can be granted a pension. When I receive the report I shall communicate with the Deputy.
asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware that a claim for a pension under the Military Service Pension Act, 1924, was lodged by Mr. John Mason, Junior, Gormanstown, Ardfinnan, which claim has not been passed by the Board of Assessors; that Mr. Mason has produced considerable evidence in support of his claim for pre-Truce service in the Volunteers, and is generally recognised locally as having seen active service with the Volunteers, and if in view of this, the Minister will have his application reconsidered by the Board of Assessors.
A pension has not been granted to Mr. Mason for the reason that he did not establish to the satisfaction of the Board of Assessors that he gave the minimum amount of military service required by sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924. The finding of the Board on the available evidence is final and conclusive. Mr. Mason's application can be reconsidered only if he furnishes additional evidence in support of it. He has been so informed.
Will the Minister define what he means by additional evidence? Will any increase in the evidence given already be considered additional evidence or will it have to be completely new evidence in regard to his service?
It is clearly a matter for the Board. If I have to send a case back it must be proven that the evidence is additional to what has been already supplied to the Board.