§ Captain CLIVEasked if it has been finally decided that the grant of outdoor relief, however small, to a husband disqualifies the wife also for a pension; and, if not, why the decision of the Dore Sub-Committee of the Hereford Pension Committee to grant a pension to No. 317,: Hannah Lewis, Shipton Croft, was reversed, though her husband has only had 2s. 6d. a week, the lowest sum that the local board of guardians ever grant to one person.
§ Mr. BURNSIt would not necessarily follow that a wife was disqualified for an old age pension because her husband received relief. All the circumstances must be considered. In the case referred to the claimant had no independent means of her own, and hence it appeared to the Local Government Board that she must participate in the relief given to her husband,, and that consequently she was disqualified.
§ Mr. SNOWDENHas it not been repeatedly laid down in regulations issued by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and in reply to questions in this House, that Poor Law relief given to a husband does not disqualify the wife for a pension unless the amount is so large that it is obviously intended for the support of both.
§ Mr. BURNSYes; but where, as in this particular case, the amount of outdoor relief given to the husband is only 2s. 6d. a week, obviously an amount incapable of sustaining both, we construe it the other way.
§ Mr. FLYNNI understand the poorer the person is the greater the chance of being struck off the pension list?
§ Mr. FLAVINWhen, as is the universal practice in Ireland, a man gets a shilling a week, what proportion of that will go to the support of the wife?
§ Mr. STEWART BOWLESIn this particular case is the House to understand that if this woman had had independent means she would not have been disqualified?
§ Captain CLIVEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this particular case the woman was occasionally in receipt of relief from her children?
§ Sir JOHN DEWARHave the Board of Guardians indicated that this relief was entirely for the husband or partly for him And partly for the wife?
§ Mr. BURNSIf the husband had only had 2s.6d.—the lowest sum that a board of guardians can grant to one person—it was granted to the husband.
§ Lord R. CECILAre we to understand that the ground why the woman was disqualified was that since she had no means of her own she must be assumed to have had part of the 2s. 6d.?
§ Mr. BURNSThe Noble Lord has correctly assumed the facts. The guardians and the Local Government Board say it is impossible if a man receives half-a-crown a week, and his wife has no means, that he is going to allow his wife to go without any portion of that 2s. 6d. She must share it.