asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if the claim to an old age pension of James Flood, Poles, Cavan, was disallowed merely on the grounds of the non-production of birth certificate, despite the submission of declarations that he was of the qualifying age, and if he will undertake to have further inquiry made into the case to ascertain whether or not the claim to pension is justified.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - OLD AGE PENSION CLAIMS.
SEAN MAC GIOLLA 'N RIOGH
The claims in this case have been disallowed on the ground of insufficient evidence to show that Mr. Flood has attained the age of 70 years. The last decision upon a claim from him was given so far back as the 22nd October, 1923.
His baptismal certificate was not produced. The declarations referred to merely stated in April, 1922, that the claimant was 71, and a later one in August, 1923, merely affirmed the accuracy of the first declaration.
If the claimant is now in a position to submit more definite or conclusive evidence of age it is open to him to make a new pension claim in the usual way.
asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if in the case of Mrs. Ellen Coogan, Old Grange, Narraghmore, Co. Kildare, whose old age pension has been disallowed on the ground that in addition to £10 a year and the use of a room which her nephew is bound to allow her, she is being maintained by him; if he will state whether the nephew is legally bound to support and maintain his aunt, and, if not, whether it is intended to restore the pension.
From the official papers and as stated in my reply to the Deputy on the 7th instant, it would appear that the claimant is being maintained by her nephew, who holds a farm of 80 acres.
I cannot inform the Deputy on the second part of the question, but the value of maintenance must be calculated in such cases.
In the circumstances I have no power to reconsider the decision already conveyed.
Arising out of that answer, does not the Minister think that that should have been ascertained by the persons responsible?
I do not think so.
SEAN MAC GIOLLA 'N RIOGH
asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if the claim to an old age pension of James Reilly, Ballinagh, Co. Cavan, was disallowed on the grounds of the non-production of birth certificate; if it is a fact that upon an appeal by this man the appeal was heard without his having received notification in time to attend the Pensions Committee in Bawnboy when his claim was being heard, upon which occasion the pensions officer opposed the claim, and it was again disallowed; if it is a fact that Reilly appealed again to the Local Government Department in the month of March, and received no acknowledgment from that Department, and if he will have further inquiry made into the case.
Two claims for the old age pension in this case have been disallowed on the ground of insufficient evidence to show that the claimant has attained the age of 70 years.
I have no information as regards the second part of the question.
His recent claim was disallowed by the Bawnboy Pension Sub-Committee on the 14th February last, the ground stated being "not yet 70 years." Mr. Reilly appealed against that decision, and the file was thereupon referred to one of the Ministry's general inspectors for local investigation. His report has been received, and is being carefully considered in connection with the other official papers.
The case was about to be decided within the last few days against the claimant, but I am prepared to defer a decision for a short time to enable him to produce any more definite or conclusive evidence of age he may find possible to obtain.
asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether he is aware that an old age pension has been refused in the case of Patrick Maguire, Union Hall, Co. Cork, who has been unable to produce a birth certificate, and whether, in view of the fact that Maguire has other evidence of age available, he will indicate the nature of the evidence he is prepared to accept in this case.
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.
As regards the second part I will give the Deputy a copy of a circular which was issued recently on the subject.
Can the Minister inform the Dáil what the instructions are regarding the amount of proof that is required, because this is a question which affects thousands?
I have issued information upon the subject to the House already.
In that circular which I have seen it is stated that affidavits will be received from people of good standing. I would like to have an interpretation as to who will be looked upon as persons of good standing. I do not think we ought to assume any one would deliberately sign a wrong affidavit.
Any person who would be worthy of belief would be a person of good standing in such a case.
Will the Minister have copies of the Order he speaks of circulated to Deputies?
And will the Minister promise to take account of any signed affidavits made, and not throw them in the waste paper basket as usual?
I never throw them in the waste paper basket.
SEAN MAC GIOLLA 'N RIOGH
asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if the claim to old age pension of Bridget Rehill, Corracreeney, Cloverhill, Co. Cavan, has been disallowed merely on the grounds that a birth certificate was not produced; if he is aware that in the cases of many old persons it is impossible to produce birth certificates; whether it is not a fact that there is ample testimony from persons acquainted with Bridget Rehill that she is over the age which qualifies for the old age pension, and if he will again have the facts of the case inquired into with a view to granting the pension.
Two claims made in this case have been disallowed on the ground of insufficient evidence to show that claimant has attained the age of 70 years. Her baptismal certificate has not been produced. The only evidence submitted as proof of age in connection with the recent appeal was an affidavit from an old age pensioner who declared that he knew the claimant from childhood, and that to the best of his knowledge and belief she was well over 70 years, and should have been in receipt of the pension for some years past.
The file was referred to one of the Ministry's general inspectors for local investigation. His report has now been received, and is being carefully considered in connection with the other official papers.
A decision against the claimant was about to issue, but I have deferred the matter for a short time to enable her to produce any more definite or conclusive evidence of age that she may be in a position to obtain.
Arising out of that answer, the Minister said there was only one declaration made by the old age pensioner. I happen to know that there are two at least, and this claim has been allowed two or three times by the Committee.
I was not aware of these facts.
asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether, as a result of a recent medical examination, a claim made by Owen Wade, McCurtain Hill, Clonakilty, to an old age pension, has been granted from 9th April, 1924, and not from the date of the passing of the claim by the local Sub-Committee on the 20th September, 1923; whether this decision is not at variance with the terms of the Old Age Pensions Acts which provides that pensions are payable from the date of passing by a sub-committee where decisions of a sub-committee are ratified, and whether Wade's case will be reconsidered with a view to making his pension payable from date of granting by sub-committee.
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. On consideration of the Inspector's report it was held that the claimant did not fulfil the statutory condition of blindness prior to the 9th April, 1924, and even on that date it was a border line case. He was consequently ineligible for the blind pension before that date. The decision is in accordance with law, and I regret that it cannot, therefore, be reconsidered.
Is the Minister aware that the medical examination in this case did not take place for several months after the pension was granted, and if the medical examination had been made sooner would not the man have received the pension several months before?
As I said, it was a border line case, and the medical inspector was not disposed at first to grant the pension at all.
Is it not in accordance with law that the payments should be retrospective from the date of application?
No; the facts have to be taken into consideration in each individual case.