§ Mr. MOONEYasked if the right hon. Gentleman can state why the Local 1334 Government Board have refused a pension to Mary Anne M'Alister, of Chapel Street, Newry (number in pension officer's register A 164, number in S. C. R. 84); whether he is aware that documents were submitted to the Local Government Board showing that the claimant's brother, Hugh M'Allister, of Rostrevor, county Down, has been in receipt of a pension for the past two years; that the said Hugh M'Allister made a sworn declaration before Dr. M. J. M'Cartau, J.P., that his sister, the claimant, was two years older than himself; and that the certificate of baptism of the claimant's youngest brother, Robert M'Allister, was produced to the Local Government Board, showing that he was baptised on 5th September, 1840; and if, under all these circumstances, he can state what evidence is required by the Local Government Board before they will grant the pension to which the claimant is by statute entitled?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe Local Government Board upheld the pension officer's appeal in this case on the ground that they were not satisfied that the claimant had reached the statutory age. The pension officer reported that her brother Hugh was granted a pension having regard to his marriage in 1861 and to his personal appearance, but the officer did not consider that the claimant appeared to be seventy years old. The evidence as to the relative ages of claimant and the two brothers mentioned was conflicting. Whilst she and Hugh alleged that she was older than Hugh by two years, in her claim in October last she set herself down as only seventy years old, and the pension sub-committee gave as one reason for allowing a pension that she was only two years younger than Hugh. A certificate of Robert's baptism was produced as stated, but the Board could find no satisfactory evidence to show whether he was older or younger than claimant.
§ Mr. MOONEYasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that Margaret Sheridan, of Lower Mill Street, Newry, was granted an old age pension two years ago by the local pension committee; that the pension officer appealed, and, though the claim was supported by the sworn declaration of a Mr. M'Manus, aged eighty-five, the claim was disallowed on the ground that the claimant's name could not be traced in the 1851 Census; whether he is aware that the claimant's name has since been traced in the 1851 Census on the identical information at first supplied, and that she is over 1335 seventy-three years of age; whether this woman has been deprived and is to suffer the loss of a pension to which she is entitled owing to the manner in which the Local Government Board investigate these matters; and whether he is aware that the Local Government Board never send an inspector to investigate the appeals, as is done in England?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe Local Government Board have disallowed two claims by Margaret Sheridan on the ground that she failed to show that she had attained the statutory age. Both the pension officer and the claimant informed the Board that her family could not be traced in the Census Returns of 1841 and 1851, and the only evidence she put forward consisted of statements by several persons of their belief that she was qualified as to age. The onus of proving that the statutory age has been reached rests upon a claimant, and if Mrs. Sheridan is now in a position to show that she is seventy-three years of age it is open to her to make a fresh claim, but no pension can be allowed in respect of any period prior to the date on which a claim is allowed. It is not the fact that the Board never send inspectors to investigate cases.
§ Mr. MOONEYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information given in his answer is quite inaccurate. This woman has a pension, given to her on the identical information on which it was first refused, and my question was directed to show that she has suffered the loss of pension for a period of two years owing to the neglect and inefficacy of the Local Government Board?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI have heard the hon. Member's question, and the answer to it is as I have already stated.
§ Mr. LARDNERasked if the right hon. Gentleman will state the reasons for the Local Government's Board decision in refusing an old age pension to John McCabe, Mountain Lodge, Latton, Bally bay; whether he is aware that this applicant has no means or property other than a small holding at a rent of £4 4s. per annum, and that he has been unable to work for some years past and is now seventy-four years of age; and whether he will request the Local Government Board to send down one of their inspectors with a view to making further inquiries in this case?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe Local Government Board upheld an appeal by the pension officer on the ground that John McCabe's means exceeded the statutory limit. In. addition to the farm mentioned in the question, the claimant had another farm and a forge which he assigned to a son after a previous claim to a pension had been disallowed. Before deciding the case the Board obtained a report from one of their inspectors.
§ Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary to the Treasury if, where the recipient of an old age pension who has a little invested money draws out some part of that money for living expenses, such withdrawn sum is counted by the pension authorities as income for the current year and used to reduce the amount of the pension?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse)In the case of any claimant for an old age pension who habitually withdraws a portion of his capital and expends it for his personal use or enjoyment, I am advised that as the law now stands the sums thus withdrawn and expended must be taken into account in estimating means for purposes of pension.
§ Mr. SNOWDENCan the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by habitually? Would that apply to withdrawals once in three months or three years?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEwas understood to reply: It would represent withdrawals, say, once a year. The circumstances would have to be considered by the pension committee.
§ Sir HENRY CRAIKIf a pensioner had to draw out capital to meet expenses in connection with ill-health, would that circumstance be considered?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEYes, it would be one of the circumstances taken into account by the pension committee.
§ Mr. SNOWDENSeeing that a large number of these cases have recently occurred, can nothing be done?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI am not responsible for the decisions of the pension committees.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONHas the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of introducing some amending legislation on this point?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI have done so, and hope there may be an opportunity of passing an amending Bill through the House.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThere is divided jurisdiction between the Treasury and the Local Government Board. I am responsible for the pension officers.
§ Sir E. CARSONHave the law officers of the Crown been consulted?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSENot on this particular subject.
§ Mr. SNOWDENIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is owing to the action of the pension officers, for whom he admits responsibility, that this grievance has arisen?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe question is raised by the pension officers, but the decision is given by the pension committees.