§ SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities)
I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of an applicant for an old-age pension at East Molesey to whom the pensions sub-committee felt themselves obliged to grant a pension, although he had £1,030 invested in Consols; and whether he is advised that the allowance of a pension in such a case was justified by the Pensions Act.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS
I have received a letter from the Molesey sub-committee respecting a case in which a man has £300 invested in Consols and his wife £730. Both are claimants for old-age pensions. I presume this is the case to which the Question refers. I gather that the committee have not at present come to a decision on these claims. I may say generally, that the Old-Age Pensions Act requires the yearly income, whether from investments or from other sources, to be taken into account. If the income from an investment, together with any other means possessed by the claimant, does not exceed £31 10s., and he is not otherwise ineligible, he is qualified for a pension. The amount of the pension will depend on the amount of the means.
§ SIR HENRY CRAIK
Would not an applicant for a pension be required to invest that capital sum in an annuity which would largely exceed the amount that would exclude him from a pension?
§ MR. JOHN BURNS
I would defer answering that Question until after the pension committee have considered the matter further.
§ MR. HAROLD COX (Preston)
May I ask whether the furniture of these capitalists will be taken into account?
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)
Do not instructions lay down generally that all these sums are to be taken at 4 per cent. unless they are invested?
§ MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)
Is there anything in the Act which prevents persons from investing their money for the benefit not only of themselves but their descendants?