asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that court proceedings were taken to recover some of the old age pension money paid to Peter Reilly, Aghamore, Aughnacliffe, County Longford, after his death; that this man was in receipt of a pension of 10/- per week pursuant to Departmental decisions given in 1935 and 1939; if he is further aware that £300 National Loan and money in banks possessed by this man was held in trust by him for his brothers in U.S.A. and that evidence to that effect was produced to the Department of Local Government and Public Health in 1939 together with a memo setting out in detail the amount of the various sums mentioned and stock and land held; and, if so, he will now state on what grounds he has reversed previous decisions and why court proceedings were taken in this case.
Ceisteanna.—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Longford Man's Old Age Pension Money.
I am satisfied that the National Loan held by the late Mr. Peter Reilly, and the moneys in bank in his name, were his own property, and were not merely held by him in trust for another person. As the executor of his will refused to repay the pension money overdrawn by Mr. Reilly, legal proceedings for its recovery were instituted and were successful.
Is the Minister aware that there was a memorandum from me on the file setting out the particulars of his National Loan and the different deposit receipts, and that his counsel denied that such a memorandum was on the file and that, when that memorandum was being submitted to the Department of Local Government and Public Health, letters from his brothers were submitted showing that the money was held on trust by him; and that the Department of Local Government and Public Health in 1939 so found?
I am aware that there was certain evidence submitted by the Deputy when this man was looking for an old age pension. I am also aware that the officials concerned accepted that evidence as correct. Later, evidence and later investigations, however, showed to the satisfaction of the officials that the evidence was not correct. It came out later, too, when the will of this man was investigated, that he had complete control over that money and disposed of it without reference to anybody and was, therefore, the absolute owner. The Deputy is also aware that action was taken in the courts on this matter, when the Deputy gave evidence in the case, I believe, and the judge decided in the terms I have read out in the answer.
Is the Minister aware that the judge was not deciding the question as to whether the applicant was or was not entitled to a pension? The question the judge was called upon to decide was whether the Order made by the Minister for Local Government was in order or not and, therefore, there was no question of fact to be found by the judge. I am not discussing the judge's decision, but it was contended by the State in court that this memorandum by me was not on the file when the decision was being given in 1939.
I am fully satisfied, after all investigations have been made, going back over the 1939 position and the position up to recent date, that the Revenue Commissioners were fully justified in all the actions they took, and I stand over them.
I want my own case to be perfectly clear. The Minister admits that the memorandum setting out these facts, of the man having this money, was before the adjudicator.
Yes, I have seen the memorandum.
Then that is satisfactory, on that point. Would the Minister say what was the nature of the evidence which controverted that? Is the Minister aware that the evidence which I submitted consisted of letters from his brothers in America setting out at various stages what they proposed to do with the money on their return; and that in his will he did not specifically mention these moneys but used the vague phrase—he was an old man at this time—"all my property to my brothers in America"?
We are satisfied that he was in full ownership of the money which he disposed of by his will.