Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas Next - Ar Aghaidh

Dáil Éireann - Volume 34 - 27 March, 1930

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Donegal Old Age Pension Claims.

Mr. Cassidy asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he will state the reason why an old age pension was refused to Margaret Gallagher, of 43 Cottage, Lagnahoory, Kilmacrenan, Co. Donegal.

General Mulcahy: This claim was disallowed on appeal on the 9th January, 1930, as the evidence submitted was not considered sufficient to establish the age of the claimant.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the Minister aware that the applicant is unable to obtain either a baptismal or a birth certificate but furnished two affidavits by persons who are in receipt of old age pensions stating that the claimant is of the statutory age. If so, what more evidence does the Minister require?

General Mulcahy: I am aware that affidavits have been made, but they were not of such a nature as to warrant our accepting them as evidence of age.

Mr. Cassidy asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he will state why an old age pension award of 10s. per week made by the Dunfanaghy Old Age Pension Sub-Committee in respect of Daniel Boyle, of Upper Dore, Bunbeg, Co. Donegal, has been disallowed by his Department.

General Mulcahy: This claim was disallowed on appeal on the 4th March, 1930, as the evidence submitted [174] was not considered sufficient to establish the age of the claimant.

Mr. Cassidy: May I point out to the Minister that, in so far as this case is concerned, the applicant was not able to obtain either a birth, baptismal or marriage certificate owing to none of these records being kept at that particular time in Donegal? Is the Minister further aware that the applicant also furnished two affidavits from old age pensioners, that the pension officer told him to furnish two more, that these two additional affidavits were furnished, but, notwithstanding the fact that four affidavits were furnished, the claim was turned down? What more evidence does the Minister want?

General Mulcahy: It is not because one, two, or four affidavits were made that they can be accepted as evidence of the fact that the claimant is of statutory age. Everything possible, I am sure, is done by local committees and by the Department to indicate means by which claimants can bring forward evidence that will be regarded as fairly satisfactory in regard to the question of age. The Deputy must take it that if the claim was turned down it was because there was prima facie evidence that the applicant was not of statutory age.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the Minister aware that applicants in rural areas where no birth certificates are obtainable suffer a handicap in comparison with applicants in the city, where such certificates are obtainable, and in view of that fact will he give some little latitude to these poor people?

General Mulcahy: I am not aware that there is a handicap in providing sufficient evidence, and I do not agree that persons in areas where birth certificates cannot be got are without pensions because of that reason.

Mr. Cassidy: This is one case.

General Mulcahy: It must be taken that if there was anything [175] like a clear suggestion that the claimant was of statutory age the appeal would not be disallowed.

Mr. E. Doyle: Is not the Minister aware that this evidence was taken on oath, and that he on a recent occasion made it difficult for Deputies to negotiate with his Department?

General Mulcahy: No.

Mr. Davin: Are we to understand that the Minister regards sworn statements of this kind as being generally of a false nature? If so, has he no machinery at his disposal to deal with people who, in his opinion, are guilty of perjury?

General Mulcahy: If Deputies seriously mean that persons who make affidavits should, in all cases in which the evidence cannot be accepted, be proceeded against on a perjury charge I would like to have it more specifically.

Mr. Cassidy asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he will state why an old age pension award of 10/- per week made by the Dunfanaghy Old Age Pensions Sub-Committee in respect of Mrs. Kate Rodgers, of Lower Dore, Bunbeg, Co. Donegal, has been disallowed by his Department.

General Mulcahy: This claim was disallowed on appeal on the 4th March, 1930. The evidence submitted consisted of three affidavits which were not considered sufficiently conclusive to establish the age of the claimant.

Mr. Cassidy: May I point out that this is another case where neither a birth nor a baptismal certificate was obtainable? I have got the claimant's marriage certificate in which no age is shown. Affidavits were again furnished in this case. What further evidence can the Minister want?

Mr. Davin: Does the Minister regard a statement of the pension officer made in confidence as being more important and more reliable [176] than the sworn statement of the people who made the affidavits?

General Mulcahy: There is no statement made by the pension officer in confidence. Any statement made by the pension officer is made with the full knowledge of the Committee who deal with the case.

Mr. G. Boland: Would the Minister state what is taken as conclusive evidence? If two affidavits of old people in that district are not considered conclusive, what is considered conclusive?

General Mulcahy: All the information that can be brought before the appeals officer is very fully considered. Where there is any kind of prima facie case that the applicant is of the statutory age, and where the appeal is not exactly allowed, the papers are put into the hands of an inspector who investigates the matter locally.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the Minister consider putting these three cases into the hands of an inspector to investigate them?

General Mulcahy: These cases have been considered very carefully already in the Department and they have been disallowed. They can only arise again on a fresh application.

Mr. Cassidy: Did the inspector report on them?

General Mulcahy: Whether the inspector reported or not does not arise and the appeals have now been decided. If there was any reasonable case upon which the inspector should be asked to report the Deputy may take it that he was asked to report. If the inspector was not asked to report, then the general nature of the evidence before the Department was such that the Department did not consider it reasonable that the inspector should be asked to report.

Mr. O'Connell: The Minister has made a very important statement. I would like to ask whether it is a fact when an appeal is made, the pension officer is asked or allowed to put before [177] the Department of Local Government any new evidence that has not been before the Committee? The Minister states that he is not supposed to forward anything that has not been before the Committee. I would like to have a definite assurance on that, that anything put before the Local Government Department has already been before the Committee.

General Mulcahy: Certainly.

Mr. Davin: Would the Minister give an undertaking to the House that in the case of applicants, whose applications are supported by affidavits, and where the pension officer subsequently appeals, he will, in future, instruct his inspectors to make a report on these cases before turning down the applications?

General Mulcahy: No, I could not undertake to do that because I have seen the queerest possible affidavits.

Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas Next - Ar Aghaidh