§ Mr. REDDYasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that Esther Fox, of King's County, applied to the No. 5 district pension committee for an old age pension, 1870W which the committee granted her in face of the opposition of the pension officer, who held that her income exceeded £31 10s. per annum, she receiving her keep and a home from a person who was under no liability to support her; that, according to the pension officer's calculation, this was valued at 7s. per week, though the committee thought that 5s. per week amply represented maintenance in a farmer's house; that, on the pension officer's appeal, the Local Government Board refused the pension; that subsequently Esther Fox again applied and was allowed the pension of 5s. per week on her new application to the committee, the pension officer being of opinion that the applicant was only entitled to 2s. per week; and that she again appealed and on the 12th November, 1910, the Local Government Board decided that she was not entitled to any pension, notwithstanding the fact that the officer was prepared to agree to a pension of 2s. per week; and will he now cause this case to be reopened and inquired into, and the Local Government Board old age inspector asked to make a report as to the applicant's circumstances and the value of her maintenance and keep?
§ Mr. BIRRELLEsther Fox has at different times made three claims. The first was disallowed by the local pension subcommittee on the ground that her means exceeded the statutory limit, and no appeal was made against this decision. On each of the other two claims the committee granted her a pension of five shillings a week, but the Pension Officer appealed. On both occasions he estimated the value of her maintenance at £26 per annum, but on the second claim interest was calculated by him at the rate of 4 per cent. on a sum of £150 which claimant had in the bank, while on the third claim interest was calculated at only 1¾ per cent. The Board is not bound by a Pension Officer's estimate, and did not adopt it in this case. They considered that her support, benefits, and privileges on a farm, rented at £36 per annum and carrying thereon cattle and two horses, besides other stock and crops, was worth more than £31 10s. a year. It is not in their power to reopen the case.