HC Deb 12 December 1911 vol 32 cc2319-25
Mr. O'DOHERTY

I owe an apology for having again to refer to a subject which has often been discussed. I consider it necessary, however, once more to bring before the notice of the House a few glaring cases which have received scandalous treatment at the hands of the authorities responsible for the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act in Ireland. Everyone in Ireland knows that the difficulty arises from two causes—the absence of baptismal or parochial records and the imperfect and inaccurate census returns of 1841 and 1851. It is with the last-mentioned cause I intend to deal. I maintain that the people were not to blame for these imperfections. It was the Government of that day which is responsible, and I submit that the Government of the present day ought not to take advantage or benefit on that account. I have here several cases which, I believe, were refused pensions because their names did not appear in the Census of 1841 or of 1851. On that ground they were refused pensions, although we have satisfactory letters from people of seventy and eighty years of age, testifying that the applicants are certainly over the required age. We have often heard it stated here that if in the absence of census returns, other satisfactory evidence could be produced the pension would be granted.

The first name I would mention is that of Elizabeth M'Intyre, who is certified to be of age by a gentleman named Robert Barr and also by a lady named Isabella Butler. Both certify that they have known the lady for upwards of seventy years. I think that should be sufficient evidence to enable the Local Government Board and the pension officers to admit this claimant to the advantages of the Act. The second name is that of John Dennison. The Right Rev. Mons. M'Faul certifies that he has satisfied himself that the claimant is over seventy years of age. I submit his reverence would not give that certificate if he was not satisfied that the applicant is of ago. In view of the fact that a name does not appear in the Census returns no other evidence can possibly be adduced or required in order to give the applicant the pension. The next name is that of Cecilia M'Cready, on whose behalf a declaration is made by an old gentleman named Patrick M'Monagle, who I know to be a man of the highest respectability and integrity. He certifies and declares that the applicant is over seventy years of age. He himself is eighty-five years of age, and therefore, I submit, is in a position to make that declaration.

Then there is another name—Elizabeth Leonard. The declaration made here, made also by a gentleman of over seventy years of age, testifies to the same facts. Another is Rose M'Ginley. The declaration is made by a gentleman aged seventy-four. He has no hesitation in saying the applicant is over seventy. Another, the last I shall trouble the House with, is Charles Bell. He is certified by a gentleman named James Wiley, who is seventy-six years of age, and another gentleman named Moses Walker, seventy-four years of age. Both certify he is only two or three years younger than either of them; they all grew up as children together. Consequently they have no hesitation in certifying that he is of age. Their declaration is countersigned by Mr. James McLauglin, J. P.

At that time, Mr. Speaker, there was no parochial certificate or register. At all events, nothing is available now. They were unfortunately destroyed in some way. Is it not very hard on these people who lived at that time that they should be deprived of their pensions because of this? It is possible that, if these registers were now available, they would show these persons were fully entitled to obtain pensions. There is no other evidence we can procure except respectable people, who can testify and certify in the way I have mentioned. I submit these are cases which call and demand the fullest and most sympathetic consideration, not only the most sympathetic, but right and just consideration, so that these persons shall get the pensions to which they are entitled by Act of Parliament.

This is not a matter of economy. It is a matter of scandalous injustice to deprive these people in this way. Now I will refer you to the answers we have got from time to time across the floor of this House. We have tried to follow them as well as we could. I have the honour to be on a pensions committee myself, and I can say that that committee, and I know several of them personally, are most anxious that no applicant shall receive a pension unless he is entitled. They go most carefully and most scrupulously into all the cases, and would not recommend one single applicant unless they were quite satisfied he or she was seventy years of age. It is absurd to talk of bogus claims and people who are not entitled to pensions getting them. No pension committee I know of would do anything of the sort. On the 24th April of this year the President of the Local Government Board here (Mr. Burns) said in answer to a question: In the absence of documentary evidence of age, the Board are willing to give consideration to any other evidence which may be adduced.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)

Hear, hear.

Mr. O'DOHERTY

"Hear, hear," the right hon. Gentleman says. We have adduced all the evidence it is possible to adduce, and that evidence should be considered and respected. Further, on the 24th May of this year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in answer to a question:— Pension authorities already have the power to grant old age pensions, in the absence of documentary proof of age, if other satisfactory evidence is afforded. In the cases I have cited the documentary proof of age is not forthcoming, because there is no parochial certificate, but we have given all the other satisfactory evidence that we could possibly obtain, and I submit that the claims should be considered. On the 14th of July last the then Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hobhouse) said: I see no necessity for the issue of any further instruction to pension officers in the matter. In the case of any claimant who can produce no certificate of birth, baptism, or marriage, to establish a claim with regard to age, or who cannot be traced in the Census Records of 1841 or 1851, the existing instructions allow the pension officer to refrain from an appeal, if he is himself satisfied that the claimant has attained the age of 70. That answer exactly meets my cases. The right hon. Gentleman may tell me, of course, that pension committees are sympathetic to the applicants for pensions. No doubt they are. But they are also just and they will allow no claim merely through sympathy. As to the pension officers, sometimes in a heroic way a man will show his independence of a committee and refuse claims he should allow and lodge appeals because he would like to appear independent. But I should like to know what is the use of committees being formed at all if they do not have some authority to act. What is the use of having constituted them by Act of Parliament if their recommendations are not respected? I should like to know if such evidence is to be considered by the committee and acted on or if we are to act only on the censuses? In that case the committees might be abandoned altogether and the duties left in the hands of the pension officers.

I shall also be told, I suppose, that the cases of appeal are against me, but I submit it was never the intention of the House to deprive worthy applicants of pensions, I shall be told of the great number of pensions now being paid in Ireland, and, especially, that some are being paid unjustly. I say in answer to that, that no number of pensions being paid can justify refusal to one deserving applicant. I would, therefore, ask the Chief Secretary to-night, to give the assurance that these respectable people who have given declarations to facilitate worthy applicants, shall have their declarations considered, and that the pension officers will do their duty. I do not reflect upon them as a body, but there may be individuals who are indiscreet and who may through a sense of false heroism, do what they should not do, to destroy the administration of the Act because they are showing their independence. I ask the Chief Secretary to give me an assurance that he will respect the declarations and the evidence given, and that he will take steps to see that no worthy applicant shall be deprived of the benefits of this beneficent Act that was passed for the good of the people.

MARQUESS of HAMILTON

I only wish to intervene for one moment. I am very sleepy myself and I dare say others are. I thoroughly endorse everything that has fallen from my hon. Friend. I have made some inquiries, and I think everything he says is absolutely correct as far as I can gather. There is no doubt there is very great difficulty in tracing the age of these people, but everything possible is done. I know that this is so in the case of my own constituency. The hon. Member is a member of the Pensions Committee himself, and is more competent to speak than I am on the matter. I hope the Chief Secretary will give what he has said the most favourable consideration.

Mr. BIRRELL

I can assure the Noble Lord and my hon. Friend that there is no question here of the respectability either of the good people who want to have pensions or of the people who occupy the position of guarantors. This is a question of the practice and duly of the Local Government Board, to whom under the Act there is an appeal from the decision of the Pensions Committee. I have often spoken on this question in the House of Commons, and I have found it rather difficult to induce gentlemen who are concerned with the cases of particular applicants for pensions to bear in mind the obligation imposed by the Act. It is not a case of "Do you think a person is seventy years of age." It has been laid down even by the Court of Appeal in Ireland that attainment of the age of seventy is an inexorable, rigid condition in connection with the grant of a pension. Therefore a person may, in fact, be seventy years of age, but unless he or she is in a position to give reasonable evidence which would satisfy a reasonable person—something, that is, which may really be called evidence, and not merely the general pious belief of another person that this particular person is seventy—unless that reasonable evidence is forthcoming, however hard the case may be, that person cannot get a pension. Applicants, therefore, have to prove themselves to be seventy.

The Local Government Board has strained the point a good deal, it is true, having regard to the fact that there are no certificates of birth in Ireland prior to 1865. We have practically allowed the two censuses which are capable of being referred to as being in themselves proof that a person is seventy to be used as evidence, but because we have done that people have jumped to the conclusion that if a person's name is not in one or other of those censuses we do not acknowledge that any evidence can be forthcoming satisfactory to the Local Government Board. But that is really not so. We have done in Ireland just what has been done in England. We have admitted any evidence which we considered to be of a really satisfactory character. We have not probed the matter too far. The cases put forward by the hon. Member are cases in which quite responsible people have in an affidavit, a letter, or a statutory declaration, stated what they know regarding the ages of various applicants. But when we have come to investigate cases we have found that in a good many instances the means of knowledge are of the flimsiest and most unsatisfactory character. When they come to be traced they amount to nothing more than a belief that the person is seventy years of age.

We have had at the Local Government Board in Ireland up to July, 1911, no fewer than 49,190 appeals and we have in the great majority of instances allowed the person to come in and get the pension. But in the case of others, on investigation and examination, it was found there really were not sufficient grounds for admitting them. We are not for a moment disputing the verity and veracity of these people. I am far from saying that any lies at all are being told in respect of this matter. This is not a question of lies. It is a question what your knowledge is. The inexorable, rigid condition is that a person must prove himself or herself to be seventy before he or she can get the pension. We open our minds to any evidence which can properly be called evidence. The President of the Local Government Board has instanced a case where a sampler was worked by a particular person when a child of eight or nine years. That was accepted by the Local Government Board in England and so it would be in Ireland. We grasp at everything which can be called real evidence, but we really cannot let loose the floodgates by saying that all you have to do is to get three or four respectable people in your neighbourhood to say they have known you all their lives and are satisfied themselves that you are seventy and are therefore entitled to a pension. That is why opinion in so many cases is not evidence. In some cases it is because the deponents have not stated what their means of knowledge are. No court ever pays any attention to an affidavit unless there is a paragraph at the end stating what the means of knowledge are; and those means of knowledge have to be closely investigated.

When the Local Government Board of Ireland is accused of being hard in these matters I may give the percentages of persons who have been granted pensions in different parts of the United Kingdom. They are: 17 per 1,000 in England; 19 per 1,000 in Scotland; and 46 per 1,000 in Ireland. In rural districts in Ireland it rises as high as 52 per 1,000. It is the bounden duty of the Local Government Board to investigate this matter strictly. I have taken a great interest in it myself and have had scores of those cases which are considered typical put before me. It is impossible to lay down any general rule except that it is the duty of the Local Government Board to consider anything which is evidence, but we cannot give any assurance that we shall be satisfied with mere statements that people believe somebody else to be of the age of seventy. We must have something more than that. There is evidence of appearance. Let me say as to that, it is rather difficult between sixty-five and seventy-five to be quite confident of the age of an old lady. I have often attempted myself to come to some conclusion, and I have found it very difficult. At the same time there are people who have had no other evidence but that of appearance and they have got pensions. I will call the attention of the Local Government Board to the cases which have been referred to and they will look into one or two and see whether by any chance there was real evidence in the statement as to the belief of some of the other persons as to the ages of the applicants. But I cannot give any assurance that we shall depart from what I consider to be our absolute duty imposed on us by statute to see that people do not obtain these pensions unless there is something that a reasonable man can honestly believe to be good evidence. There is no reason whatever why the people who have been referred to should not make new claims, but I cannot say, being responsible for this Department, which has done its work admirably well, that I am going to loosen my opinions as to what is true evidence.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes after Two a.m., Wednesday, 13th December, 1911.