HC Deb 02 December 1909 vol 13 cc584-6W
Mr. MEAGHER

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will state on what date would a claimant, otherwise eligible, who was a year and a half old in the Census Returns of 1841 be entitled to a pension; when would a claimant be entitled who was one in 1841; and, when there is a discrepancy in the Returns of 1841 and 1851 (1½ in 1841 and 11 in 1851), what Return is to be taken as correct?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

The Census of 1841 was taken on 6th June of that year, and I am informed that the Local Government Board have adopted that date as a standard date for the computation of the age of those who cannot supply other evidence of the actual day of their birth. A person, therefore, who was 1½ years old in 1841, provided that the other conditions were fulfilled, would, if the actual day of birth could not be proved, become eligible for a pension on the 6th instant. Similarly, if one year old in 1841, he would, in the absence of evidence of the precise date of birth, become eligible on 6th June next. Where there is a discrepancy between the Census Returns of 1841 and 1851, I understand that, for the reasons stated in their Annual Report (pages XII. and XIII.), the Board follow the Census of 1841.

Sir OWEN PHILIPPS

asked the Secretary to the Treasury how many persons are in receipt of old age pensions in the following places, and what is the total amount per week distributed in the said places respectively in the form of such pensions: Pembroke and Pembroke Dock (borough), Haverfordwest (borough), Tenby (borough), Milford Haven (urban district), Narberth (urban district), Neyland (urban district), Fishguard (urban district), and Wiston (Parliamentary borough)?

Mr. HOBHOUSE

No statistics of the local distribution of old age pensions are at present published, and while I could easily make inquiries as regards particular neighbourhoods, I am afraid that if I consented to do so in one instance demands might be made for similar particulars from all parts of the country, which could only be supplied at the cost of great labour to pension officers.

Mr. RUPERT GUINNESS

asked the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to the cases of women eligible, as regards age and character, for pensions who are disqualified owing to the non-British nationality of their husbands; whether he is aware that in such cases as that of Mrs. Leleu, of 88, Marshall-street, Folkestone, where the husband is actually in receipt of a War Office pension of 2s. 2½d. per day for military services rendered to the Crown, doubts have been expressed by competent authorities as to the disqualification pronounced by the Local Government Board; and whether, in view of such doubts, he can recommend the question to be laid before the Law Officers of the Crown?

Mr. BURNS

The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. My attention has been called to cases of the kind referred to, including the particular one mentioned. I am not aware that doubts have been expressed by any competent authority that in such cases the claimant is disqualified, and it does not at present appear to me necessary to consult the law officers on the subject.