§ Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Pawley's case, the Local Government Board still claim the right to withdraw at any time old age pensions which have been granted by local pensions committees with the assent of pension officers and enjoyed, often for a considerable period, in the absence of new facts; whether a subsequent examination of the Census Returns is held to constitute a new fact; and whether it was the duty of the pension officers to have satisfied themselves in the first instance of the age of each applicant before the pension was allowed to be issued?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI understand that in the case referred to the Court of Appeal decided that Pawley had no right to raise the question which was raised, and this case does not debar the Local Government Board from deciding questions properly raised as to the statutory right of pensioners to continue to receive pensions. In view of the recent decision of the King's Bench Division in the case of Sinnottv. the Wexford Pension Committee, an examination of the Census Returns is held to constitute a new fact. The pensions officers are not under my direction, and any question as to their duties should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury.
§ Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Court of Appeal, in the case of the King (Pawley) v. the Local Government Board for Ireland, to the effect that that Board had no jurisdiction in the matter; and whether steps have been taken to have old age pensions restored in this and all similar cases, together with the arrears due?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI understand that the Pawley decision applies only to a very few 1287W cases which have come before the Local Go vernment Board. The question of the best means of dealing with cases governed by it is under consideration.
§ Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Thomas M'Cormack, of Longford pension district, and his wife, both of whom are over 70 years of age (admitted), have been refused a pension because the old woman had been getting a little out-door relief in respect of the maintenance of an orphan grandchild, both of whose parents died leaving her to their care; whether he is aware that the relief in this case was solely given for the benefit of the child and not for the benefit of either Thomas M'Cormack or his wife; and whether, in the circumstances, he will direct the Local Government Board to give these old people the pension, and also arrears due?
§ Mr. BIRRELLI understand that Thomas M'Cormack's wife received 1s. 6d. a week out-door relief, as proved by the Relieving Officer's Application and Report Book. If such relief were intended for the grandchild referred to, the Board of Guardians were empowered under the Pauper Children (Ireland) Acts, 1898 and 1902, to board the child out with Mrs. M'Cormack and to pay for its maintenance, which they did not do. In view of the terms of Section 3 (1) (a) of the Old Age Pensions Act, M'Cormack and his wife appear to be disqualified for receiving pensions.