§ Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the old age pension granted to Mrs. Nancy Cannon, Carrowcannon, Falcarragh, by the Dunfanaghy sub-committee on 17th February has not yet been paid?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE:The delay was due to an oversight, which is regretted. Instructions have now been issued for the delivery of a pension order book to Mrs. Cannon covering the whole period from the date upon which the pension became legally payable.
§ Sir CHARLES DILKEasked the Secretary to the Treasury by whom the pension officers in Ireland were instructed, as specified in paragraph 14 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on Old Age Pensions, in which he deals with small holdings; and whether the first of two references to the Local Government Board in that paragraph refers to the Irish Local Government Board?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE:The action of the pension officers in Ireland in adopting a rough and ready method of assessment of the profits derived from small agricultural holdings in certain cases was covered by general instructions from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under No. 34 of the Old Age Pensions Regulations, 1908. The answer to the second question is in the affirmative. I would, however, suggest 326W to my right hon. Friend that it might be convenient to defer any questions which may arise upon matters which are now before the Committee of Public Accounts until the Report of that Committee has been presented.
§ Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Hugh Coyne, of Ballinabol, Castlebar, county Mayo, was awarded 4s. a week under the Old Age Pension Act, and continued to draw this pension until on the marriage of his son ha assigned his interest in his land to the latter; that he was then advised by the pension officer to raise a question of means with a view to having the pension increased to 5s. a week; that, on his raising such question, the pension officer reported that he was entitled to no pension; whether he is aware that the local committee, on investigating the case, allowed Coyne 5s. a week, and the Local Government Board, on appeal by the pension officer, decided that Coyne was not entitled to any pension; will he state upon what grounds this decision was arrived at, and ask the Local Government Board to inquire carefully into the circumstances of the case, which is now before them on a second application by Coyne?
§ Mr. BIRRELL:I understand that the facts of this case are as stated in the question, save that the Local Government Board do not know by whose advice the pensioner raised the question of means. 327W They decided that he was not entitled to any pension on the ground that his means exceeded £31 10s. per annum, and they are now inquiring into a fresh claim which he has put forward.
§ Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Bridget M'Gennis, of Westport, county Mayo, was in receipt of an old age pension granted by the Westport pension sub-committee with the approval of the local pension officer, and that, on a question of age subsequently raised by the pension officer, the local committee decided that she was obviously over seventy years old and continued the pension; whether he is aware that the Local Government Board on appeal disallowed the pension on the grounds that the pensioner's name did not appear in the Census record of her family in the year 1841; whether the Local Government Board, before coming to this decision, examined such record or a copy of it; whether he is aware that it appears from this record that the parents of Bridget M'Gennis were married in 1814, and were aged, respectively, 56 and 55 years in 1841; and will he state how the Local Government Board arrived at the conclusion, notwithstanding the unanimous opinion of the sub-committee, supported by the pension officer in the first instance, that she was born after the year 1839, when, according to the Census record, her parents had been twenty-five years married and were aged, respectively, 51 and 53 years?
§ Mr. BIRRELL:I understand that, on the question being raised, the pension subcommittee held that Bridget M'Gennis was seventy years of age. The pension officer appealed against this decision, and the Local Government Board allowed the appeal on the ground that the pensioner's name did not appear in the Census returns of 1841 among the members of her parents' family. The Board invited further evidence, but the claimant could not produce any. The Board do not personally search or examine the Census records. This is done by the Public Record Office, and the results are notified to the Board by the pension officer. The report in the present case did not give the particulars mentioned in the question as to the claimant's parents, nor did the claimant submit them to the Board. If she is now in a position to submit further evidence as to the date of her parents' marriage, and as to their ages in 1841, it is open to her to make a fresh claim.
328W
§ Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that, immediately after the passing of the Old Age Pensions Act, Mary Corley, Carheens, Breaffy, Castlebar, applied to the local committee for a pension; that the pension officer re ported that she was entitled to 4s. per week, and the committee allowed 5s. per week; that the Local Government Board, on appeal by the pension officer, decided on the grounds of means that she was entitled to no pension; and will he say whether, in coming to this decision, the Local Government Board followed the judgment of the superior courts in the Pawley case?
§ Mr. BIRRELL:The facts are as stated in the question. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Pawley case is not applicable to this case, which was a claim for a pension. The judgment applies only to questions respecting pensions already granted.