§ Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY (for Mr. Thomas O'Donnell)asked the right hon. Gentleman whether in cases where a pension claimant can produce no documentary evidence of age, but where the pension officer, as well as the local pension committee, are satisfied that he is of the statutory age, the pension officer is compelled to appeal against granting a 1061 pension; and whether, as the Local Government Board can have no further facts to guide them, such direction to pension officers is also a direction to the Local Government Board to refuse all such claims?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEIn the circumstances described a pension officer is not compelled to lodge an appeal to the Local Government Board against a decision of the local pension committee granting a pension. If, in the exercise of his discretion, he does lodge an appeal, the Local Government Board, over whom I have no control, direct or indirect, so far from being bound to accept the conclusion drawn by the pension officer from the facts, must decide the appeal according to their own judgment.
§ Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYDo the Treasury give the Local Government Board any directions as to how to act in such cases?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSENo. We have no control direct or indirect over the Irish Local Government Board.
§ Mr. FLAVINI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Excise authorities, within the last week or fourteen days, have issued fresh instructions to the pension officers?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI am not aware that they have done so, but I will inquire.
§ Mr. FLAVINIf they have done so will he place those instructions on the Table of the House?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEIt is not customary to lay what are regarded as confidential instructions upon the Table of the House, but I will make inquiries.
§ Mr. BELLOCCan the right hon. Gentleman suggest why that kind of thing does not happen in England?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEPrincipally because there is in England a Registration of Births and Deaths Act.
§ Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY (for Mr. Thomas O'Donnell)asked whether the pension officer in his report on each pension claim states that he has personally investigated it, and gives his opinion as to the reasons for refusing or granting the pension; and whether the investigating officer's judgment in these matters has been frequently overborne by the supervisor who, not having himself investigated the claim, cannot know its merits?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In answer to the second part, I am informed by the Board of Customs and Excise that they are not aware of any case in which a supervisor has overruled a pension officer without personal investigation of the claim. But if the hon. Member will give me particulars of any case in which the pension officer is alleged to have been unwarrantably overruled, I will have it inquired into.
§ Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state, in regard to the case of Mary Kelly, Rathmore, Kiltealy, county Wexford, who applied for an old age pension to the Enniscorthy and Kiltealy sub-committee on 4th January, 1910, and whose claim was resisted by the pension officer on the ground that the 1851 Census Returns showed the applicant to be only sixty-seven years of age, if the pension officer in this case consulted the Census Returns of 1841; if the Census Returns of 1841 prove this woman to be seventy-two years of age, by whose authority, or on whose instructions, did the pension officer consult the Census of 1851 and omit to consult the Census of 1841, or if he consulted it with the old result from the committee; and if he will take steps to provide that, in connection with future applications for old age pensions in Ireland, the 1851 Census Returns shall only be used for reference in cases with regard to which the 1841 Census Returns fail to provide information?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative, but on the first occasion the result of the search showed no trace of the family in 1841, in consequence of the pension officer having been furnished with the name of John Kelly, the grandfather, as head of the family, instead of the pensioner's father, Michael Kelly. Under the standing instructions pension officers are required to obtain where possible the necessary particulars to enable a search to be made in the Census Returns both of 1841 and 1851, and accordingly both Census Returns were searched in this case. There appears to be nothing in the history of the case to suggest that the present arrangements require any modification in the interests of pensioners or claimants. This pensioner has, I understand, drawn a pension continuously since 1st January, 1909.