§ Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the grounds 2228W upon which the Board of Customs and Excise decided to withhold from Frederick Garrett, or Jarrett, 8, Victoria Road, Upper Norwood, an old age pensioner, the benefit of No. III. of the administration concessions and took legal proceedings against him, although his private yearly means, apart from his old age pension, were only about £33, as compared with the £78 ordinarily permitted by the concessions; whether such ground is stated in the concessions; whether the central pension authority under the Old Age Pensions Acts, the Local Government Hoard, when allowing the question raised by the pension officer of the Treasury for the revocation of the pension, informed the Board of Customs and Excise that they, the Local Government Board, regretted that, the Board of Customs and Excise had not extended to the pensioner the benefit of the concession; and whether he will arrange that the interpretation of the concession shall in all cases of appeal be vested in the Local Government Board?
§ Mr. BALDWINThe facts of this case are that in December, 1910, the pensioner obtained regular employment at a rate of wages which raised the combined means of himself and his wife to an amount which certainly exceeded the statutory limit for a pension, and possibly, for a time at any rate, the limit for the administrative concessions. The pensioner repeatedly declared that there had been no increase of means of which he had not informed the officer; in August, 1917, he obtained the additional allowance of 2s. 6d. a week by an incorrect declaration as to his means; and in August, 1918, he declared that his earnings were casual and only amounted to 5s. weekly, and on being pressed declared that they would not amount to more than 6s. weekly, whereas, according to the employer's statement, he had been earning since December, 1916, wages of at least 15s. weekly in addition to free meals. On the correct facts coming to light, the pensioner was prosecuted under Section 9 (1) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, when the magistrate found the offence proved and ordered the pensioner to be bound over under the Probation of Offenders Act. Even assuming that the combined means of the pensioner and his wife were within the limit for the administrative concessions, it has been found necessary to lay down that a pensioner who makes false statements as to his means shall not be allowed the benefit of those conces- 2229W sions. I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion made in the last paragraph of the question.
§ Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the effect of the Administrative Concessions [Cd. 8320] is to alter certain of the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Acts; whether the concessions arc illegal but have generally the force of law; whether the interpretation of the concessions has been entrusted to the Treasury and the Board of Customs and Excise instead of shared, as is the interpretation of the Old Age Pensions Acts, between those Departments and the Local Government Hoard (the central appeal authority under those Acts); and whether it should be arranged that for the future the interpretation of the concessions shall be shared between the Departments named as follows: The Treasury and the Board of Customs and Excise to interpret for the purpose of raising or refraining from raising questions and the Local Government Board to interpret for the purpose of deciding any question so raised?
§ Mr. BALDWINThe administrative concessions do not alter or override the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Acts. They merely represent the exercise by the Treasury of the discretion which those Acts confer upon them to prescribe when and in what circumstances action should be taken for the reduction or revocation of pensions. The Treasury have not delegated this discretion to any other Department nor could they do so, but when action for the reduction or revocation of pensions has once been taken then the subsequent proceedings are determined solely by the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Acts, with which there is no power to interfere. I think the right hon. Member will, therefore, see that the distribution of functions between Departments which he suggests is not a practicable one.
§ Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the grounds for the Treasury's decision that the Administrative Concessions [Cd. 8320] did not extend to the war bonus of 2s. a week allowed by the London Society of Compositors to Henry Hurst, 21, Sandmere Road, Brixton, with the result that, although his private means, apart from his old age pension, amounted to only 12s. a week, his old age pension was, at the instance of the Treasury, reduced to Is. a 2230W week; whether such ground is stated in the concession; and, if not, whether he will give instructions that a fresh edition of the concession shall be prepared in which such ground, or any other ground, for withholding the benefit of the concession shall be clearly stated?
§ Mr. BALDWINI cannot admit that the assumption contained in the first part of the hon. Member's question is correct. In accordance with Cd. 8320 action was not taken for reduction or revocation of Henry Hurst's old age pension in consequence of the London Society of Compositors allowing him the "war bonus" referred to. Action was taken at a later date for reduction of the pension, but that action was taken in consequence of a subsequent alteration in Hurst's circumstances unconnected with the allowance of the bonus. Irrespective of the bonus Hurst has permanent means of £26 a year, and a pensioner with that income, if unmarried or a widower, is not entitled to the full pension. The fact that Hurst had been granted the full pension was due to his being a married man, and so long as his wife was alive he was entitled under the Old Age Pensions Acts to halve his means for pension purposes. When the wife died Hurst ceased, irrespective of the bonus, to be entitled to the full pension, and action was necessarily taken for its reduction. As regards the last part of the question, I can scarcely think that it is necessary to add to Cd. 8320 a statement that action will be taken in the ordinary course for reduction or revocation of pensions where a pensioner's circumstances change in some way that is not within the concessions.