asked the Minister for Defence whether a claim of Michael McGuinness, Knockaderry Donard, for a pension or gratuity on the ground that he was dependent on his father, who was accidentally killed by Volunteer arms on the 2nd December, 1921, has been rejected; whether the grounds for rejection were that he was not totally dependent on his father; whether the claimant has only one hand; whether several responsible persons who have know him all his life have testified that he was always considered an invalid, and incapable of earning a livelihood; whether McGuinness is now entirely dependent upon his sister who has small means and a large family; and whether the Minister will reconsider the case with a view to the granting of some allowance to this man.
CEISTEANNA.—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - DONARD PENSION CLAIM.
Michael McGuinness made application under the Army Pensions Act, 1923, in respect of the death of his father, the late Mr. James McGuinness, who was accidentally shot dead by the applicant on the 2nd December, 1921. Mr. McGuinness claimed that he was the sole dependent of the deceased, but investigations revealed that the deceased left a widow and two children by his second marriage, who have been granted allowances under the Act. I am not aware that, although the applicant has only one hand, he is incapable of earning a livelihood, as I understand he was for some time employed as a postman. I have given careful consideration to the case, and I regret that, having regard to the terms of the Act, I am unable to make an award to Mr. McGuinness.
Surely it is a quibble to say that the Minister is not aware that this man is unable to earn a living if it is admitted he has only one hand and the fact that he got a few weeks work as a temporary postman would not be proof that he was able to earn a living.
The case was considered by the Board and again considered on appeal and that is final.
Is not the real fact that because 26/- a week was allowed to the widow of the deceased man that the Board considered that they had given all they could in this case, and that it is not because this man is not entitled to a pension but because they had given so much to the widow it was refused?
The Board has found that the widow and children of the second marriage were dependents and their decision in the matter is final under the Act.