asked the Minister for Social Welfare the contribution which his Department makes towards the cost of (a) spectacles, (b) lenses and (c) hearing aids.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cost of Spectacles and Hearing Aids.
36.
Under the optical benefit scheme administered by my Department a claimant may obtain spectacles of a certain specified type free of charge. If he does not wish to avail of these free spectacles he may choose a type with a better class of frame which is supplied at a fixed price or he may choose a more expensive type of frame the price of which is not controlled; in either case the Department contributes 23/6 towards the cost. Where both reading and distance glasses, or bi-focals, are obtained a double contribution, namely 47/-, is made.
Where lenses are fitted to frames of the type which were supplied free of charge the Department defrays the full cost. Where lenses are fitted to frames of any other type a contribution up to a maximum of 23/6 is made by the Department, or 47/- in the case of bi-focal lenses.
As regards hearing aids where the cost of the appliance or repair does not exceed £3 the Department contributes two-thirds of the price. Where the cost exceeds £3 it normally contributes half.
I do not think the Minister dealt with contact lenses.
No. There is nothing about contact lenses here.
It is in the question, under (c). I was particularly interested to know what contribution is made towards the substantial cost of contact lenses.
The Deputy specifies lenses, not contact lenses.
In (c), I asked what contribution is made.
Not in Question No. 36; it is in Question No. 35.
I am dealing with Question No. 36.
A sum of 47/- or 23/6 would not go far towards meeting the cost of contact lenses.
I do not think these people, generally speaking, are interested in contact lenses.
The Minister does not know the vanity of women.
I bow to the Deputy's superior knowledge.
(Cavan): Is the Minister aware that the frames at present being supplied are distinguishable 50 yards away? Would he consider supplying what might be described as frames that would not brand the wearers as recipients of social welfare?
That is a separate question.
I see nothing wrong with people wearing framers supplied under the law.
One thing is certain: the Minister would not wear them.
(Cavan): If the Minister wants to adopt that attitude, I would say the Minister would look pretty well with them on.
It would be easy to improve the Deputy's appearance.
This is helpful.