HC Deb 20 February 1911 vol 21 cc1523-4
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he was aware that Mary Lahiff, of Carron, county Clare, applied for a pension in 1910, and was refused on the ground that she was not seventy years of age, that the claim was subsequently made good and the woman proved to be seventy-six, and the pension allowed; and whether he would consider the possibility of allowing the pension from the date when the claim was first lodged?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse)

I am informed that, in connection with her first claim, Mrs. Lahiff did not give correctly the particulars requisite for establishing her age by reference to the Census Records. The result was that she could not be traced in these records, and that in the absence of any evidence of age the claim was disallowed by the Local Government Board on appeal. As the Pension Officer was not at fault, I regret I cannot sanction a grant to Mrs. Lahiff for any period prior to the date when her second claim was allowed.

Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND

Can arrangements be made that in all cases in which a claimant for an old age pension has been unable to produce the required evidence of old age on the first occasion, but subsequently does so, the pension shall be paid from the date of the original claim?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

I am afraid I cannot do that. There are certain cases in which the fault is attributable to the pension officer. In this case, unfortunately, the fault was due to this lady not merely not giving the particulars required, but giving an incorrect report. It was, therefore, entirely owing to her own action that she was unsuccessful on the first occasion. Under these circumstances, I fear I could not agree to act as suggested.

Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND

Could not the right hon. Gentleman make a difference in a case where the Pension Committee are satisfied and grant the claim, and where it was satisfactorily proved that the claimant was of the proper age, so that the Government might reconsider this matter, and obviate the injustice of depriving this woman of the money?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member had better put down a question. We have had only five questions, and six supplementaries.

Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND

I beg to give notice that I will call the attention of the House to this monstrous injustice.

Mr. O'DOWD

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether Luke Torsney, residing in the pension district of Ballymote, was in receipt of a pension of 2s. during the year 1909; whether, at the beginning of 1910, Torsney appealed to the Local Government Board (Appeal No. 7, 1575), demanding 5s. per week, which appeal was refused; whether he was aware that this man voluntarily gave up his pension book, with the result that during 1910 and up to the present he has received no pension; whether, at the end of 1910, Torsney applied for his pension book, with the view of drawing his back pensions at the rate of 2s. per week for 1910, and that his application was refused; and, if so, whether the amounts due to this man for the whole of this year will now be paid him?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

The facts are as stated in the first three parts of the question. As regards the fourth part, Luke Torsney's application for the pension, which he might have drawn during 1910, has not been refused; and the pension of 2s. a week has been restored to him with arrears.

Mr. O'DOWD

Do I understand that the pension which accrued during last year will now be given to him?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

Yes.